(LIBRARY 
JN I  VERITY  Of 

CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


&J 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


The    Secession    Movement 

in  South  Carolina, 

1847-1852 


BY       . 

PHILIP  MAY  HAMER 


A  THESIS 

PEESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OP  THE  GRADUATE   SCHOOL 

IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


H.  RAY  HAAS  &  Co., 

Printers  and  Publishers 

ALLENTOWN,  PA. 

1918 


COPYRIGHT,  1918 

BY  P.  M.  HAMEB 


PREFACE 

The  period,  1847-1852,  forms  but  a  small  part  of  the  more 
than  thirty-five  years  during  which  may  be  traced  the  course  of 
events  which  found  its  logical  fulfilment  in  the  secession  of 
South  Carolina  from  the  Union  in  1860.  Although  limited  in 
time  and,  in  this  thesis,  restricted  largely  to  one  state,  the  dis- 
union movement  of  this  period  possesses  a  unity  and  significance 
sufficient  to  warrant  separate  treatment.  In  its  first  phase  it  was 
primarily  a  Southern  movement  in  opposition  to  the  attempted 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories  acquired  as  a  result  of 
the  Mexican  War.  It  developed  under  the  leadership  of  John  C. 
Calhoun  into  an  effort  to  unite  the  South  in  a  demand  for  the 
equality  of  the  slave  power  within  the  Union  or  its  independence 
without  the  Union.  The  difficulty  of  securing  concerted  action 
on  the  part  of  the  slave  holding  states  was  demonstrated  by  the 
failure  of  the  Nashville  Convention,  which,  however,  but  for 
the  Compromise  of  1850,  might  have  been,  as  Robert  Barnwell 
Rhett  believed  it  would  be,  ' '  the  beginning  of  a  revolution. ' ' 

In  this  first  phase  South  Carolina  had  played  an  important 
but  not  too  conspicuous  part.  In  the  second  phase  she  openly 
demanded  the  rejection  of  the  Compromise  and  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  Her  disunion  majority,  however,  was  split  into 
two  factions:  one  demanding  the  secession  of  South  Carolina 
alone  from  the  Union;  the  other  advocating  disunion,  but  only 
in  cooperation  with  other  Southern  states.  The  victory  of  the 
latter  faction  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Compromise  by  the  other 
states  prevented  any  precipitate  secession. 

The  failure  of  the  secession  movement  left  South  Carolina 
in  1852  still  within  the  Union,  but  rather  from  necessity  than 

III. 


from  choice.  A  decade  earlier  than  the  other  states  of  the  South 
she  was  convinced  that  negro  slavery  and  the  interests  of  the 
Southern  states  which  were  dependent  upon  that  institution  were 
threatened  with  destruction  by  a  continuance  of  the  political 
connection  between  the  slave  holding  and  the  non-slave  holding 
sections  of  the  Union.  That  South  Carolina  did  not  secede  in 
1852,  or  even  a  year  or  two  earlier,  was  due  solely  to  the  fact  that 
she  could  not  confidently  expect  even  the  cotton  states  to  join  her 
in  the  formation  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  She  remained 
within  the  Union  until  these  states  by  1860  had  advanced  to  her 
position. 

It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  say  that  I  have  attempted  to 
treat  impartially  this  period  in  the  history  of  my  state.  I  can- 
not refrain,  however,  from  expressing  here  my  keen  admiration 
for  that  handful  of  brave  men  who.  led  by  Joel  R.  Poinseti, 
James  Louis  Petigru,  arid  Benjamin  F.  Perry,  in  this  period  of 
extreme  sectional  hatred  and  partisan  strife  remained  true  and 
loyal  defenders  of  the  Union. 

I  wish  to  express  my  indebtedness  to  Professor  W.  K.  Boyd 
of  Trinity  College  at  whose  suggestion  and  under  whose  direc- 
tion this  study  was  begun.  I  am  also  indebted  to  Dean  Herman 
V.  Ames,  under  whose  guidance  the  major  part  of  my  graduate 
work  has  been  done,  and  to  Professor  A.  E.  McKinley,  of  the 
Graduate  School  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  for  their 
reading  and  helpful  criticism  of  the  manuscript. 

An  article  by  Professor  C.  S.  Boucher,  "The  Secession  and 
Co-Operation  Movements  in  South  Carolina,  1848  to  1852,"  in 
the  Washington  University  Studies,  Vol.  V,  No.  2,  appeared  only 
after  the  completion  of  the  manuscript  of  this  thesis  and  has 
consequently  been  of  no  aid  in  its  preparation. 

P.  M.  H. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 
MAY,  1918 

* 

IV. 


CONTENTS 


oVo 


PAGE 

Chapter  I.          The  Wilmot  Proviso  and  the  Campaign  of 

1848   1 

Chapter  II.       United  Action  Urged,  1848-1849 22 

Chapter  III.      The  Nashville  Convention   38 

Chapter  IV.       The  Compromise  Rejected 62 

Chapter  V.        Secession  Advocated  84 

Chapter  VI.       The  Campaign  and  Election  of  1851  102 

Chapter  VII.     The  State  Convention 126 

Bibliography  144 


V. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848 

' '  Nullification  has  done  its  work, ' '  wrote  James  L.  Petigru, 
a  leader  of  the  South  Carolina  Unionists,  in  1833 ;  "  it  has  pre- 
pared the  minds  of  men  for  a  separation  of  the  States,  and  when 
the  question  is  mooted  again  it  will  be  distinctly  union  or  dis- 
union. ' ' x  Thirteen  years  later  the  United  States  was  at  war 
with  Mexico,  and  the  prospect  of  securing  additional  territory 
from  that  country  led  to  the  raising  of  the  question  which  Peti 
gru  had  foreseen.  President  Polk  asked  Congress  for  an  appro- 
priation of  two  million  dollars  to  be  used  by  him  in  securing  an 
adjustment  of  the  boundary  with  Mexico,  and  a  bill  for  this  pur- 
pose was  introduced  into  the  House.  On  August  8,  1846, 
David  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  precipitated  the  sectional  con- 
flict by  moving  as  an  amendment  to  this  bill  a  proviso  prohibit- 
ing slavery  in  any  territory  that  might  be  acquired  from  Mex- 
ico. 2  The  House  accepted  the  proviso  and  passed  the  bill  thus 
amended,  but  the  session  came  to  an  end  before  a  vote  could  be 
taken  in  the  Senate. 

In  South  Carolina  little  attention  was  paid  at  first  to  the 
proviso.  A  few  of  the  newspapers  were  mildly  alarmed.  The 
Camden  Journal 3  saw  indications  of  a  coming  struggle  which 
would  convulse  the  Union ;  the  Greenville  Mountaineer  *  feared 
that  territorial  conquests  would  raise  issues  vital  to  the  exist- 

1 J.  L.  Petigru  to  H.  8.  Legare,  July  15,  1833,  in  J.  B.  Allston,  "Life 
and  Times  of  James  L.  Petigru,"  in  Chas.  Sunday  News,  June  3,  1900. 
'Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1217. 
'Quoted  in  Pendleton  Messenger,  Oct.  16,  1846. 
4  Oct.  30,  Nov.  13,  1846. 


2  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

ence  of  every  Southern  state ;  and  the  Pendleton  Messenger*  re- 
puted to  be  Calhoun's  organ,  though  at  first  inclined  to  dismiss 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  with  the  opinion  that  it  would  have  failed  in 
the  Senate  and  ought  to  have  done  so,  declared  a  little  later,  in 
view  of  the  general  disposition  of  both  parties  in  the  North  to 
court  the  abolitionists,  that  beyond  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  the  South  would  not  yield  an  inch.  These  were  but  scat- 
tered warnings.  Even  in  the  South  Carolina  legislature,  which 
was  in  session  during  November  and  December,  1846,  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  extension  into  the  territories  caused  no  discus- 
sion. 

Congress  reassembled  in  December,  and  within  the  next  few 
weeks  it  became  clear  that  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
had  received  the  indorsement  of  the  people  of  both  parties  in 
the  North  and  would  be  insisted  upon  by  their  representatives 
in  Congress.  The  realization  of  this  caused  alarm  in  the  South. 
The  gravity  of  the  situation  appeared  so  great  to  John  C.  Cal- 
houn,  senator  from  South  Carolina  and  foremost  champion  of 
slavery,  that  he  wrote:  "What  is  to  come  of  all  this,  time  only 
can  disclose.  The  present  indication  is,  that  the  South  will  bo 
united  in  opposition  to  the  Scheme.  If  they  regard  their  safety 
they  must  defeat  it  even  should  the  Union  be  rent  asunder .... 
We  never  had  a  darker  or  more  uncertain  future  before  us. "  * 
Yet  Calhoun  thought  that  the  contest  would  not  arise  until  the 
expected  territory  should  actually  be  acquired.  This  likewise 
was  the  view  of  South  Carolina's  most  influential  state  rights 
paper,  the  Charleston  Mercury,  which  declared  that  the  South 
would  firmly  insist  upon  her  fair  share  of  the  proposed  acqui- 
sition. 7 


"Aug.  21,  Nov.  13,  1846. 

8  Calhoun  to  Mrs.  T.  G.  Clemson,  Dec.  27,  1846,  Valhoun  Correspon- 
dence, 716. 

T  Mercury,  Dec.  24,  1846. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848          3 

A  settlement  of  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories 
along  the  line  of  that  made  by  the  Missouri  Compromise  would, 
at  this  time  at  least,  have  been  satisfactory  to  South  Carolina. 8 
But  the  defeat  of  an  amendment  to  the  Oregon  territorial  bill, 
proposed  by  Representative  Burt  of  South  Carolina,  which 
would  have  committed  Congress  to  this  principle, 9  and  the 
adoption  by  the  House  for  the  second  time  of  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso, 10  convinced  the  press  of  the  state  that  any  division  of  the 
spoils  of  war  between  the  two  sections  would  not  willingly  be 
granted  by  the  North.  A  storm  was  brewing,  they  warned  their 
readers,  which  would  shake  the  Union  to  its  centre ;  the  Republic 
was  in  danger ;  the  ruin  of  the  South  had  been  decreed,  and  she 
must  be  prepared  to  meet  the  issue.  " 

Calhoun  had  been  ' '  waiting  for  developments. ' '  On  Febru- 
ary 19,  1847,  four  days  after  the  House  had  adopted  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  for  the  second  time,  he  presented  in  the  Senate  his  views 
on  the  question  at  issue  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  resolutions  pre- 
faced by  a  speech  in  which  he  denounced  the  proviso  and  called 
upon  the  South  to  resist.  His  resolutions,  soon  termed  "The 
Platform  of  the  South ' ',  were  as  follows : — 

"Resolved,  That  the  territories  of  the  United  States  belong 
to  the  several  States  composing  this  Union,  and  are  held  by  them 
as  their  joint  and  common  property. 

"Resolved,  That  Congress,  as  the  joint  agent  and  represen- 
tative of  the  States  of  this  Union,  has  no  right  to  make  any  law, 
or  do  any  act  whatever,  that  shall  directly,  or  by  its  effects, 
make  any  discrimination  between  the  States  of  this  Union,  by 

8  Chas.  Evening  News,  quoted  in  Pendleton  Messenger,  Jan.  29,  1847 ; 
Greenville  Mountaineer,  Jan.  22,  1847;  Pendleton  Messenger,  Jan.  22,  1847; 
Mercury,  Feb.  20,  1847. 

9  Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  sess.,  187. 

10  Ibid.,  425. 

11  Pendleton  Messenger,  Jan.   1,  1847;   Chas.  Evening  News  quoted  in 
ibid.,  Jan.  15,  1847;  Mercury,  Dec.  24,  1846,  Feb.  9,  24,  1847. 


4  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

which  any  of  them  shall  be  deprived  of  its  full  and  equal  rights 
in  any  territory  of  the  United  States  acquired  or  to  be  acquired. 

"Resolved,  That  the  enactment  of  any  law  which  should 
directly,  or  by  its  effects,  deprive  the  citizens  of  any  of  the 
States  of  this  Union  from  emigrating,  with  their  property,  into 
any  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  will  make  such  dis- 
crimination, and  would,  therefore,  be  a  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  the  rights  of  the  States  from  which  such  citizens  emi- 
grated, and  in  derogation  of  that  perfect  equality  which  belongs 
to  them  as  members  of  this  Union,  and  would  tend  directly  to 
subvert  the  Union  itself. 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  polit- 
ical creed,  that  a  people,  in  forming  a  constitution,  have  the  un- 
conditional right  to  form  and  adopt  the  government  which  they 
may  think  best  calculated  to  secure  their  liberty,  prosperity,  and 
happiness ;  and  that,  in  conformity  thereto,  no  other  condition  is 
imposed  by  the  Federal  Constitution  on  a  State,  in  order  to  be 
admitted  into  this  Union,  except  that  its  Constitution  shall  be  re- 
publican; and  that  the  imposition  of  any  other  by  Congress 
would  not  only  be  in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  but  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  principle  on  which  our  political  system 
rests."12 

Calhoun  did  not  press  his  resolutions  to  a  vote  as  he  had 
planned.  The  principles  they  asserted  were  intended  to  form 
the  constitutional  basis  for  Southern  opposition  to  the  Wilmot 
Proviso,  and  for  this  purpose  the  presentation  of  the  resolutions 
in  the  Senate  was  sufficient.  A  few  days  after  their  introduc- 
tion the  Senate  rejected  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  the  House  receded 
from  its  position;  and  the  adjournment  of  Congress  postponed 
for  the  time  being  the  threatened  sectional  conflict.  There  could 
be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  effort  to  prevent  the  further  ex- 

"  Calhoun,  Works,  TV,  348;  Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  sess.,  455. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OP  1848          5 

pansion  of  slavery  would  be  renewed.  The  speeches  of  North- 
ern representatives  in  Congress,  the  agitation  of  the  question  in 
the  newspapers  of  the  North,  and  the  approval  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  by  the  people  of  the  non-slaveholding  states,  expressed 
in  the  resolutions  of  public  meetings  and  of  state  legislatures, 
were  sufficient  evidence  of  this. 

On  the  side  of  the  South  the  first  state  to  take  an  official 
position  was  Virginia.  On  March  8,  1847,  her  legislature 
adopted  resolutions  which  expressed,  even  to  a  certain  extent  in 
the  same  words,  the  doctrine  of  Calhoun's  resolutions  regarding 
the  rights  of  the  states  in  the  territories.  In  addition  they  as- 
serted the  determination  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  should  the 
adoption  and  attempted  enforcement  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
force  the  issue  upon  them,  determinedly  to  resist  ' '  at  all  hazards 
and  to  the  last  extremity."  They  called  upon  every  man,  in 
every  section  of  the  country,  if  the  Union  were  dear  to  him,  to 
oppose  the  passage  of  the  proviso ;  and,  in  the  event  of  its  pass- 
age, they  urged  every  slaveholding  state  and  all  citizens  there- 
of, as  they  valued  "their  dearest  privileges,  their  sovereignty, 
their  independence,  their  rights  of  property,  to  take  firm,  united 
and  concerted  action  in  this  emergency. ' ' 13 

In  South  Carolina  the  newspapers  vigorously  denounced 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  urged  the  South  to  speak  out  in  de- 
fense of  her  rights.  As  was  to  be  expected,  the  resolutions  of 
Calhoun  and  of  Virginia  met  with  a  decided  approbation.  On 
the  evening  of  March  9th,  an  enthusiastic  meeting  of  the  citizens 
of  Charleston  was  held  to  welcome  Calhoun  who  was  in  the  city 
on  his  way  home  from  Washington.  The  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  meeting  reiterated  verbatim  the  Virginia  resolutions; 
asserted  that  the  question  at  issue  was  paramount  to  all  con- 
siderations of  party  and  temporary  policy;  and  declared  that 

"Laws  of  Virginia,  1846-47,  236;  H.  V.  Ames,  State  Documents  on 
Federal  Relations,  245-247. 


6  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

submission  to  the  proposed  exclusion  of  slavery,  beyond  what 
had  already  been  yielded  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  "would 
be  unwise,  dangerous,  dishonorable,  and  debasing."  A  report 
accompanying  these  resolutions  expressed  the  conviction  of  the 
citizens  of  Charleston  that  the  developments  of  the  past  year  re- 
quired "the  most  grave  and  earnest  consideration  of  the  whole 
people  of  the  slaveholding  States."  The  introduction  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  and  its  acceptance  by  the  House  in  August, 
1846,  the  passage  by  the  House  of  the  Oregon  bill  without  the 
Missouri  Compromise  and  with  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  the  second 
passage  of  this  proviso  in  the  House  during  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  the  whole  temper  of  the  Northern  press,  both  Whig 
and  Democratic,  in  sustaining  this  action,  and  the  resolutions  of 
the  legislatures  of  nine  Northern  states  denouncing  slavery  and 
protesting  against  its  further  extension,  convinced  them  of  the 
fixed  determination  on  the  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  states 
that  slavery  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  exist  in  any  of  the  terri- 
tories of  the  United  States  and  that  no  other  slave  state  would  be 
admitted  to  the  Union.  The  report  furthermore  asserted  that 
slavery  must  be  preserved  or  the  South  would  be  ruined,  and 
that  to  preserve  slavery  the  South  must  jealously  watch  her 
rights  under  the  Constitution,  insist  upon  her  proportionate  in- 
fluence intended  by  the  compromises  of  that  compact,  and  above 
all  must  maintain  at  all  hazards  her  equality  in  the  Union. 14 

Calhoun,  addressing  this  assembly,  declared  it  his  convic- 
tion that  a  large  majority  of  both  parties  in  the  non-slaveholding 
states  were  determined  to  appropriate  to  themselves  all  existing 
and  future  territories  of  the  United  States.  Anti-slavery  senti- 
ment, he  said,  was  growing,  and  he  was  convinced  that  unless 
the  South  met  the  issue  promptly  and  decidedly,  the  two  sections 


14  Calhoun  to  Duff  Green,  Mar.  9,  1847,  and  to  T.  G.  Clemson,  Mar.  19, 
1847,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  718,  720;  Mercury,  Mar.  10,  1847. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OP  1848          7 

of  the  Union  would  soon  become  so  thoroughly  alienated  that  no 
course  would  be  left  to  the  South  but  abject  submission  to  aboli- 
tion or  a  severance  of  the  bonds  of  the  Union.  The  action  that 
he  urged  upon  the  South  was  the  destruction  of  all  party  dis- 
tinctions and  the  formation  of  one  Southern  party  having  as  its 
sole  object  the  defense  of  slavery.  Such  a  party  Calhoun  be- 
lieved would  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the  nation,  be  able 
then  to  put  a  stop  to  anti-slavery  agitation,  and  thus  save  slav- 
ery and  save  the  Union. 15 

Though  Calhoun  not  only  hoped  but  expected  that  the  slav- 
ery agitation  would  break  up  the  old  party  organizations, 16  the 
time  for  this  had  not  yet  come.  Outside  of  South  Carolina  both 
parties  were  strong,  and  while  the  proposal  of  a  Southern  party 
met  with  some  approval,  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  South 
considered  the  existing  party  system  sufficient  for  the  protection 
of  Southern  interests.  Even  within  South  Carolina,  where  the 
Whig  party  was  insignificant  and  Calhoun 's  influence  was  para- 
mount, there  were  some  who  realized  that  the  formation  of  a 
Southern  party  on  the  slavery  issue  would  force  the  North  to  do 
the  same  and  thereby  destroy  those  bonds  of  party  which  yet 
aided  in  holding  the  two  sections  together.  Calhoun  they  sus- 
pected of  presidential  aspirations,  and  his  Charleston  speech 
they  privately  declared  to  be  a  bid  for  the  vote  of  the  South. 
Ex-Governor  James  H.  Hammond,  nullifier  and  long  an  advo- 
cate of  disunion,  feared  that  outside  of  South  Carolina  this 
would  be  so  clear  that  ' '  our  cause ' '  would  be  thrown  back.  Vir- 
ginia has  started  the  ball,  he  wrote  to  William  Gilmore  Simms, 
and,  as  the  state  best  able  to  rally  the  South  and  lead  to  victory, 
she  should  be  kept  in  the  lead.  "South  Carolina  under  present 


"Calhoun,  Works,  IV,  382-396. 

"Calhoun  to  T.  G.  Clemson,  July  8,  24,  1847,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
735,  736. 


8  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

auspices,"  he  continued,  "can  do  nothing  if  she  puts  herself 
foremost  but  divide  the  South  and  insure  disastrous  defeat. ' ' 17 

During  the  summer  of  1847  Calhoun 's  friends  in  Charleston 
directed  their  efforts  towards  arousing  the  South.  An  extra 
edition  of  the  Mercury  containing  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  the  res- 
olutions of  ten  Northern  states  favoring  it,  the  Virginia  resolu- 
tions and  the  Charleston  resolutions  opposing  it,  and  a  leading 
editorial  by  Franklin  H.  Elmore,  President  of  the  South  Caro- 
lina State  Bank,  was  widely  distributed  in  the  slaveholding 
states.  Efforts  were  made  towards  the  establishment  of  a  South- 
ern press  at  Washington.  Letters  and  subscription  lists,  solicit- 
ing support  for  this  enterprise,  were  circulated,  but  except  from 
Charleston  and  its  vicinity  little  financial  aid  was  received. 18 
The  Mercury  took  the  lead  in  the  newspaper  agitation  and  urged 
the  South  to  make  clear  to  the  North  its  determination  to  meet 
the  issue,  should  it  be  presented,  on  the  forum  or  on  the  battle 
field. 19  The  agitation  directed  from  South  Carolina  was  not 
without  its  effect.  Throughout  the  South  various  papers  began 
to  take  alarm,  and  the  old  proposal  of  a  Southern  convention 
was  again  advanced.  It  was  not,  however,  until  a  number  of  pa- 
,pers  in  various  Southern  states  had  urged  the  assembling  of  such 
a  convention  that  the  Mercury,  wisely  having  thought  it  best 
"that  the  initiative  for  the  attainment  of  this  great  object  should 
be  taken  by  others,"  gave  its  specific  approval  to  the  sugges- 
tion. 20 

Calhoun,  in  his  private  correspondence,  was  doing  his  part 


"Hammond  to  Simms,  Mar.  21,  Apr.  1,  1847;  Simms  to  Hammond, 
May  1,  1847,  Hammond  MSS. 

18  H.  W.  Conner  to  Calhoun,  Aug.  23,  1847,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
1128;  I.  W.  Hayne  to  James  H.  Hammond,  Mar.  31,  1847;  I.  W.  Hayne  to 
Soule,  Aug.  25,  1847;  A.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Aug.  30,  1847,  Hammond 
MSS. 

» Mercury,  Aug.  9,  1847,  and  issues  of  August  and  September,  passim. 

"  Ibid.,  Sept.  30,  1847. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848          9 

to  promote  unity  at  the  South  in  defense  of  slavery.  In  this 
connection  it  is  important  to  note  his  opinion  of  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  territories  as  expressed  in  a  conversation  with 
President  Polk  in  December,  1846.  He  agreed  with  Polk  that 
slavery  probably  never  would  exist  in  the  territories  that  were 
to  be  acquired  from  Mexico.  He  further  stated,  if  Folk's  ac- 
count may  be  accepted  as  correct,  that  he  did  not  desire  to  ex- 
tend slavery,  but  that  the  attempt  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  ter- 
ritories would  involve  a  principle  against  which  he  would  vote. 21 
Calhoun  evidently  changed  his  mind  about  the  possibility  of  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  the  South-west,  and  he  certainly  did  de- 
sire its  extension,  for  the  fact  that  the  Northern  section  of  the 
union  was  outstripping  the  Southern  was  his  chief  grievance  and 
the  chief  cause  for  his  fear  that  the  South  would  soon  be  unable 
to  protect  slavery  within  the  Union.  But  it  is  true  that  he  at- 
tached less  importance  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  per  se  than  numer- 
ous others  who  took  part  in  the  Southern  movement  of  this 
period.  At  least  he  took  a  broader  view  of  the  controversy  be- 
tween North  and  South;  he  considered  the  Wilmot  Proviso  but 
one  of  the  numerous  issues  affecting  slavery  which  should  be 
settled;  and  he  looked  more  to  the  ultimate  political  than  eco- 
nomic results  of  its  adoption.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
introduction  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  gave  to  Calhoun  the  oppor- 
tunity of  forcing  the  whole  issue  of  slavery  upon  the  North.  If 
he  had  not  desired  it  and  did  not  welcome  it,  at  least  he  was  not 
slow  in  seizing  it. 

Nothing  makes  clearer  the  position  that  Calhoun  took  in 
1847,  and  furnishes  a  better  key  to  an  understanding  of  his  ac- 
tivities and  his  purposes  during  the  next  three  and  final  years  of 
his  life,  than  a  letter  he  wrote  at  this  period  to  a  member  of  the 
Alabama  legislature.  In  reply  to  a  request  for  his  opinion  as  to 

"James  K.  Polk,  Diary,  II.,  283-284. 


10  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

what  steps  should  be  taken  to  guard  the  rights  of  the  South,  Cal- 
houn  wrote:  "I  am  much  gratified  with  the  tone  and  views  of 
your  letter,  and  concur  entirely  in  the  view  you  express,  that 
instead  of  shunning,  we  ought  to  court  the  issue  with  the  North 
on  the  slavery  question.  I  would  even  go  one  step  further,  and 
add  that  it  is  our  duty — due  to  ourselves,  to  the  Union,  and  our 
political  institutions,  to  force  the  issue  on  the  North.  We  are 
now  stronger  relatively  than  we  shall  be  hereafter,  politically 
and  morally.  Unless  we  bring  on  the  issue,  delay  to  us  will  be 

dangerous  indeed Such  has  been  my  opinion  from  the  first. 

Had  the  South,  or  even  my  own  State  backed  me,  I  would  have 
forced  the  issue  on  the  North  in  1835,  when  the  spirit  of  abo- 
litionism first  developed  itself  to  any  considerable  extent.  It  is 
a  true  maxim,  to  meet  danger  on  the  frontier,  in  politics  as 
well  as  war.  Thus  thinking,  I  am  of  the  impression,  that  if  the 

South  acts  as  it  ought,  the  Wilmot  Proviso may  be  made 

the  occasion  of  successfully  asserting  our  equality  and  rights,  by 

enabling  us  to  force  the  issue  on  the  North But  in  making 

up  this  issue,  we  must  look  far  beyond  the  Proviso.  It  is  but  one 
of  many  acts  of  aggression,  and,  in  my  opinion,  'by  no  means  the 
most  dangerous  or  degrading,  though  more  striking  and  pal- 
pable   With  this  impression,  I  would  regard  any  compro- 
mise or  adjustment  of  the  Proviso,  or  even  its  defeat,  without 
meeting  the  danger  in  its  whole  length  and  breadth,  as  very  un- 
fortunate for  us.  It  would  lull  us  to  sleep  without  removing 
the  danger,  or  materially  diminishing  it."  The  letter  then  con- 
tinued with  a  denunciation  of  the  personal  liberty  laws  of 
Northern  states,  and  anti-slavery  agitation  in  all  its  phases. 
Coming  to  the  consideration  of  how  the  whole  question  could  be 
met  "without  resorting  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,"  a 
measure  which  should  be  used  only  as  a  last  resort,  Calhoun  pro- 
posed retaliation  on  the  part  of  the  South  by  a  refusal  to  fulfill 
the  constitutional  stipulations  in  favor  of  the  Northern  states. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OP  1848        11 

Specifically  he  suggested  the  exclusion  of  Northern  ships  and 
commerce  from  Southern  ports.  To  give  force  to  such  measures 
and  to  make  up  the  issue,  he  urged  a  convention  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  states. 22  The  idea  of  commercial  retaliation  was  similarly 
urged  upon  his  Charleston  friends,  in  a  letter  to  them  approving 
the  plan  then  under  consideration,  but  soon  temporarily 
abandoned,  of  organizing  the  South  into  Southern  Rights  As- 
sociations. 23 

While  Calhoun  was  thus  considering  the  measures  that 
should  be  adopted  by  a  Southern  convention,  in  South  Carolina 
a  further  impetus  to  the  agitation  against  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
was  given  by  public  meetings  held  in  all  sections  of  the  state. 
The  first  of  these,  at  Edgefield  Court  House  early  in  September, 
adopted  the  Virginia  resolutions  and  expressed  a  willingness  to 
cooperate  with  the  Southern  states  in  averting  injustice  and  re- 
sisting aggression. 2*  A  meeting  at  Darlington  on  October  4th 
declared  that  the  South  should  make  no  concession  beyond  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line;  it  deemed  the  Union  as  dust  in  the 
balance  if  its  preservation  required  submission  to  the  Wilmot 
Proviso;  and  it  demanded  that  the  Southern  representatives  in 
Congress,  upon  the  adoption  of  this  proviso,  leave  their  seats 
and  return  home. 25  In  Anderson  a  resolution  was  adopted  urg- 
ing the  South  Carolina  legislature  to  request  the  representatives 
of  the  state  in  Congress  to  retire  from  their  seats,  should  the 
proviso  pass,  and  return  home  to  consult  regarding  measures 


"This  letter,  without  date  and  without  the  name  of  the  addressee,  is 
given  by  Benton  in  his  Thirty  Years  View,  II,  698-700.  Extracts,  with 
minor  changes  in  wording,  also  printed  in  J.  W.  DuBose,  Life  of  Yancey, 
200-201.  For  the  idea  of  forcing  the  issue,  cf.  J.  H.  Hammond  to  W.  G. 
Simms,  Nov.  17,  1848,  ' '  The  Wilmot  Proviso  issue  as  I  told  you  at  the  first 
was  the  weakest  of  all  we  could  have  made  the  fight  on. ' '  Hammond  MSS. 

*  Letter  dated  Sept.  28,  1847,  published  in  Mercury,  May  5,  1851. 

14  Hamburg  Journal,  quoted  in  Pendleton  Messenger,  Sept.  24,  1847. 

"Mercury,  Oct.  11,  1847. 


12  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

for  the  protection  of  the  slaveholding  states. 26  The  people  of 
Laurens  professed  a  devotion  to  the  Union,  but  at  the  same  time 
pledged  resistance  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  "although  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Union  be  the  result. "  27  A  Greenville  meeting  adopt- 
ed resolutions  substantially  those  of  the  Virginia  legislature. 28 
The  planters  of  Edisto  Island  declared  for  "resistance  in  the 
most  effective  mode, ' ' 29  and  those  of  Georgetown  pledged  their 
cooperation  in  such  defensive  measures  as  aggression  -should 
compel. 30 

Though  for  the  most  part  these  meetings,  of  which  the  above 
are  representative,  were  unanimous  in  demanding  resistance  to 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  few  of  them  outlined  any  definite  measures 
of  resistance.  And  when  they  advocated  resistance  by  the 
united  South,  they  did  not  specifically  outline  the  means  by 
which  this  might  be  accomplished.  But  a  meeting  on  November 
2nd  in  Pickens  District,  in  which  was  located  Fort  Hill,  Cal- 
houn's  home,  made  definite  and  elaborate  proposals,  save  as  to 
the  final  action  to  be  taken  should  all  other  action  fail.  Calhoun 
apparently  took  no  part  in  the  proceedings,  but  the  resolutions 
adopted  express  exactly  his  position  at  this  time.  They  de- 
nounced not  only  the  Wilmot  Proviso  but  also  the  action  of 
Pennsylvania  and  other  Northern  states  in  preventing  the  execu- 
tion of  the  fugitive-slave  law,  and  they  proposed  action  by  the 
South  along  three  general  lines.  They  urged  first,  the  removal 
of  party  considerations,  the  establishment  of  a  Southern  press 
at  Washington,  opposition  to  any  presidential  candidate  not 
openly  opposed  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  the  refusal  to  enter  into 
caucus  or  convention  with  those  favorable  to  the  proviso,  and  the 


*Ibid.,  Nov.  16,  1847. 

"Greenville  Mountaineer,  Oct.  29,  1847. 

"Ibid.,  Oct.  8,  1847. 

"Mercury,  Nov.  8,  1847. 

"Winyah  Observer  (Georgetown),  Nov.  10,  1847. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OP  1848        13 

calling  of  a  convention  of  the  Southern  states  to  unite  the  South 
for  common  action  along  these  lines.  In  the  event  of  the  failure 
of  these  milder  measures  they  proposed  a  second  step — the  set- 
ting aside  of  the  constitutional  provisions  favorable  to  the  North- 
ern states  and  epecially  the  exclusion  of  their  ships  and  com- 
merce from  Southern  harbors.  Should  this  likewise  fail,  the 
resolutions  of  this  meeting  declared,  "we  stand  prepared  to 
throw  the  responsibility  on  our  assailants,  and  take  the  final  rem- 
edy into  our  own  hands,  without  fear  that  we  in  the  end  will  be 
the  greatest  sufferers. ' ' 31 

In  the  up-country  one  of  the  most  active  leaders  in  opposition 
to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  Benjamin  F.  Perry.  In  nullification 
days  Perry  had  been  a  Unionist.  Because  of  this  fact  and  be- 
cause of  his  later  opposition  to  secession,  his  attitude  towards 
the  proviso  is  worthy  of  careful  notice.  In  a  speech  at  the 
Pickens  meeting  he  declared  that  the  question  raised  by  the  Wil- 
mot Proviso  was  one  of  life  or  death,  and  that  its  passage  would 
be  ' '  tantamount  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. ' '  Out  of  the  coun- 
try to  be  acquired  from  Mexico  perhaps  ten  or  fifteen  states 
would  be  formed,  and  the  effects  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  he 
thought,  would  be  to  draw  a  cordon  of  free  states  about  the  slave- 
holding  country,  cut  off  all  outlet  for  property  in  slaves,  and 
make  that  property,  as  it  increased,  valueless  and  a  fatal  nui- 
sance to  the  South.  Perry  was  speaking  in  that  district  of  South 
Carolina  which  contained  the  smallest  proportion  of  slaves  and 
the  greatest  proportion  of  non-slaveholders  of  any  district  in  the 
state.  The  men  assembled  at  this  meeting  did  not  perhaps  feel 
themselves  vitally  interested  in  the  question  of  slavery  exten- 
sion, but  they  did  possess  their  full  share  of  prejudice  against 
the  black  race.  To  this  prejudice  Perry  directed  an  appeal  fre- 
quently met  with  in  the  speeches  delivered  in  this  section  of  the 

"Pendleton  Messenger,  Nov.  12,  1847. 


14  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

state.  He  declared  that  the  avowed  spirit  of  abolition  was  to 
make  the  negro  not  only  free  "but  the  equal  of  his  master. . .  .He 
is  to  go  with  him  to  the  polls  and  vote,  to  serve  on  juries,  appear 
in  court  as  a  party  and  a  witness.  He  is  to  meet  the  white  man 
as  an  equal  and  visit  his  family,  inter-marry  with  his  children 
and  form  one  society  and  one  family ! "  To  defeat  this  spirit  of 
abolition  in  the  North  and  to  save  the  Union  the  speaker  pro- 
posed that  a  convention  of  the  slaveholding  states  be  held  during 
the  coming  winter.  It  would  show  to  the  North  the  real  temper 
of  the  South  on  this  question,  he  thought,  and  exert  a  controlling 
influence  on  congress.  "Let  them  speak  firmly,  coolly  and  dis- 
passionately, ' '  he  said,  ' '  and  declare  that  any  interference  on  the 
part  of  the  Federal  Government  with  slave  property  will  be  the 
cause  of  an  immediate  dissolution  of  this  great  and  hitherto  glor- 
ious Union ....  The  voice  of  a  single  State  may  not  be  heeded 
but  when  the  whole  South  speaks,  her  admonition  will  and  must 
be  respected. ' ' 32 

Waddy  Thompson  was  one  of  the  few  South  Carolina 
Whigs.  Speaking  in  Greenville  from  the  same  platform  with 
Perry  he  declared  to  the  audience  before  him :  ' '  The  alternatives 
before  you  are  in  my  deliberate  judgment,  resistance  at  all  haz- 
ards and  to  every  possible  extremity,  to  this  insulting,  degrading 
and  fatal  measure  [the  Wilmot  Proviso],  or  the  conversion  of 
the  South  into  black  provinces."  Being  a  Whig,  Thompson 
hoped  to  avoid  the  issue  by  refusing  to  acquire  territory  from 
Mexico.  But  should  the  issue  come,  "What  then  is  the  reme- 
dy?" he  asked.  "There  is  but  one. . .  .That  word  is  not  used 
in  the  Resolutions  which  have  been  submitted,  but  the  thing  is 
meant — Dissolution.  Gentlemen,  I  ask  you,  in  the  event  of  the 
assertion  of  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  by  the  act  of 
Congress,  are  you  ready  to  dissolve  the  Union?  I  am."  33 

"Ibid.,  Dec.  10,  17,  1847. 

u  Greenville  Mountaineer,  Oct.  15,  1847. 


THE  WIL.MOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848        15 

South  Carolina  had  as  yet  taken  no  official  stand  on  the 
question  which  by  now  had  so  aroused  her  people.  Her  legisla- 
ture met  in  annual  session  late  in  November.  In  his  message  to 
that  body  Governor  David  Johnson  discussed  the  question  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  at  some  length  but  in  moderate  tones,  and  he 
recommended  the  Virginia  resolutions  as  a  correct  expression  of 
the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  states  and  as  pointing  to  the  proper 
action. 3*  In  the  Senate,  resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Federal  Relations  were  unanimously  adopted. 35  The  first 
four  were  in  substance,  and  in  part  verbatim,  the  Virginia  re- 
solutions. The  fifth,  however,  was  in  advance  of  the  position 
taken  by  Virginia.  It  declared  that  in  the  event  of  the  passage 
by  Congress  of  a  law  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slave  prop- 
erty into  any  territory  acquired  from  Mexico  or  from  any  other 
power,  it  would  become  the  duty  of  the  governor  of  South  Car- 
olina to  convene  immediately  the  legislature  in  order  that  it 
might  take  such  actions  as  should  by  it  be  deemed  necessary  and 
becoming;  and  it  requested  that  the  Governor,  between  the  sum- 
moning and  assembling  of  the  legislature,  ' '  correspond  and  con- 
sult with  the  authorities  of  other  states  with  a  view  to  harmon- 
ioas  action  on  this  important  subject."36  In  the  House,  mean 
while,  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  having  considered  a 
number  of  resolutions  on  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  reported  for 
adoption  the  Virginia  resolutions  verbatim. 37  On  the  last  day 
of  the  session  the  House  considered  the  Senate  resolutions  and 
asked  leave  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  fifth.  This  request  the 
Senate  refused  to  grant.  A  conference  committee  failed  to 
reach  any  agreement,  whereupon  the  House  tabled  the  Senate 


**  S.  C.  House  Journal,  1847,  19-20. 

"S.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1847,  130-131. 

"Courier,  Dec.  16,  1847. 

"  Columbia  Daily  Herald,  Dec.  14,  quoted  in  Courier,  Dec.  16,  1847. 


16  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

resolutions  and  adopted  without  roll  call  just  before  adjourn- 
ment the  Virginia  resolutions  as  reported  by  its  committee. 38 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  two  houses  to  agree  upon 
the  stand  that  South  Carolina  should  take  were  not  explained  at 
the  time.  The  two  sets  of  resolutions  illustrate  a  division  of 
opinion  as  to  the  course  South  Carolina  should  take,  which  was 
more  or  less  present  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Southern 
movement  resulting  from  the  introduction  of  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso. Both  houses  were,  of  course,  in  favor  of  the  sentiments  ex- 
pressed by  the  Virginia  legislature  as  far  as  they  went.  The 
Senate  resolutions  represented  the  opinion  of  those,  impatient  of 
delay  and  of  restraint,  who  desired  that  the  state  go  beyond 
Virginia  and  assume  a  position  requiring  some  definite  action. 
But  this  was  in  conflict  with  the  opinion  of  wiser  leaders  who 
sought  union  of  opinion  and  of  action  by  the  South,  and  who 
realized  that  this  could  better  be  obtained  with  Virginia  rather 
than  South  Carolina  in  the  lead. 

Already  the  Virginia  resolutions  had  met  with  a  favorable 
response  in  other  states.  In  May,  1847,  the  Alabama  Demo- 
cratic Convention  had  given  them  its  approval, 39  and  a  few 
weeks  later  the  Georgia  Democracy  did  the  same. 40  Governor 
Brown  of  Mississippi  declared  that  they  met  a  hearty  response  in 
his  state  from  both  parties.  41  In  December  the  Alabama  legis- 
lature adopted  resolutions  which  not  only  took  the  position  of 
Calhoun  and  Virginia  that  the  territories  were  the  common 
property  of  the  states  and  protested  against  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  them,  but  declared  it  the  duty  of  Congress  to  protect 
slave  property  within  the  territories.  They  promised,  more- 

"  S.  C.  House  Journal,  1847,  205,  206,  207,  208.  Neither  of  the  reso- 
lutions is  given  in  the  Journals  or  in  the  Reports  and  Resolutions,  and 
hence  the  citations  to  newspapers. 

"Niles'  Register,  LXXII,  179. 

"Ibid.,  293. 

"Ibid.,  178. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848        17 

over,  that  Alabama  would  act  in  concert,  and  make  common 
cause,  with  the  other  slaveholding  states,  for  the  defense,  in  any 
manner  that  might  be  necessary,  of  the  institution  of  slavery.  42 
The  Texas  legislature  on  February  2nd,  1848,  declared  the  pro- 
posed prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories  unconstitutional, 
and  on  March  18th,  asserted  that  the  state  would  not  submit  to 
such  restriction  if  applied  to  any  territory  that  might  be  ac- 
quired from  Mexico. 43  In  the  other  Southern  states  no  official 
action  was  taken,  and  the  presidential  campaign  soon  absorbed, 
for  the  time  being,  practically  all  attention. 

In  South  Carolina  General  Taylor  had  early  been  looked 
upon  with  some  favor  as  a  presidential  possibility. 44  The  Pen- 
dleton  Messenger,  as  early  as  May  28,  1847,  while  urging  that 
South  Carolina  should  keep  aloof  from  the  campaign  until 
further  developments,  declared  that  should  Taylor  later  come 
out  as  a  free  trade  man  and  decline  a  caucus  nomination  it  might 
become  the  duty  of  the  state  to  support  him. 45  In  Charleston 
the  feeling  in  favor  of  Taylor  was  very  strong,  but  on  the  ad- 
vice of  Calhoun  it  was  for  the  time  being  kept  quiet. 46  There 
was  even  some  hope  on  the  part  of  Calhoun 's  friends  that  he 
would  be  able  to  take  the  field  as  an  independent  candidate, 47 
but  the  futility  of  this  hope  made  any  action  in  that  direction 
impossible.  Cass,  as  one  of  the  leading  candidates  for  the  Demo- 
cratic nomination,  was  highly  objectionable  because  of  his  ad- 
vocacy of  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  territory  to  settle  for  them- 
selves the  question  of  slavery.  This  doctrine  of  "squatter  sov- 
ereignty ' '  had  been  advanced  by  Senator  Dickinson  of  New  York 

42  Laws  of  Alabama,  1847-48,  450-451. 
"30  Cong.,  1  sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc.,  Nos.  27  and  91. 
44  Hammond  to  W.  G.  Simms,  Apr.  19,  1847,  Hammond  MSS. 
^Pendleton  Messenger,  May  28,  1847. 

*H.   W.   Conner  to   Calhoun,  Dec.   8,  1847,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
1147. 

4T  James  Gadsden  to  Calhoun,  Dee.  9,  1847,  ibid.,  1148-1149. 


18  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

in  resolutions  presented  to  the  Senate,  December  14,  1847, 48  and 
approved  by  Cass  in  his  Nicholson  letter  of  December  24.  49  Cal- 
houn  was  in  close  touch  with  the  Mercury  and  he  was  interested 
in  seeing  that  this  paper  properly  noticed  Dickinson's  resolu- 
tions. 50  This  the  Mercury  did  without  much  prompting,  and  in 
its  own  vivid  style  denounced  the  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereign- 
ty, and  condemned  all  of  its  advocates  as  men  who  desired  to 
seem  to  abandon  the  Wilmot  Proviso  and  yet  retain  its  prin- 
ciple. 51  In  the  Senate  Calhoun  denied  that  either  the  people  or 
the  legislature  of  a  territory  had  a  constitutional  right  to  ex- 
clude slavery. 52  Yet  some  sentiment  favorable  to  this  settle- 
ment of  the  question  existed  within  the  state  and  increased  with 
the  progress  of  the  presidential  campaign. 53 

Acting  on  the  advice  of  Calhoun, 5*  yet  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  a  considerable  element  who,  thought  that  the  state 
should  take  some  action  in  common  with  the  other  Southern 
states  and  no  longer  content  herself  with  protestations,  South 
Carolina,  as  previously  in  1840  and  1844,  took  no  part  in  the 
Democratic  Convention  which  met  in  Baltimore  the  latter  part 
of  May. 55  Her  avowed  reason  for  thus  remaining  aloof  was 

48  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  sess.,  27. 

"Niles'  Register,  LXXIII,  293.   . 

"Henry  Gourdin  to  Calhoun,  Jan.  19,  Feb.  4,  1848,  Calhoun  Corre- 
spondence, 1159-1161. 

51  Mercury,  Jan.  6,  17,  Feb.  2,  11,  1848. 

82  Speech  on  the  Oregon  Bill,  June  27,  1848,  Calhoun,  WorTcs,  IV,  498. 

MD.  J.  McCord  to  Hammond,  Jan.  9,  1848,  Hammond  MSS.  Compare 
the  editorials  of  the  South  Carolinian,  Feb.  15  and  June  23,  1848,  for  at- 
titude on  squatter  sovereignty  before  and  after  the  nomination  of  Cass. 

MH.  W.  Conner  to  Calhoun,  Apr.  13,  1848,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
1166-1167. 

"One  Democrat  from  South  Carolina  attended  the  convention  and  was 
given  the  right  to  cast  all  of  the  votes  of  the  state.  The  Mercury  declared 
that  his  representation  of  the  state  was  a  farce,  his  only  title  to  represen- 
tation being  election  by  a  meeting  of  fifty-five  persons  at  Georgetown, 
among  whom  was  "one  solitary  planter  (the  delegate  himself),  in  the  midst 
of  a  population  of  planters,  nearly  all  Democrats."  Mercury.  May  26, 
30,  1848. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848        19 

that  she  feared  to  compromise  her  position  by  taking  part  in 
proceedings  which  might  result  in  the  nomination  of  a  candidate 
whom  she  could  not  support. 56  The  chief  organ  of  the  radicals 
demanded  of  the  convention  as  the  price  for  the  state 's  support, 
the  nomination  of  a  man  "true  and  above  taint  or  suspicion/' 
true  to  those  constitutional  principles  "on  the  maintenance  of 
which  hangs  the  fate  of  slavery — the  welfare  of  the  Slave  States 
— the  existence  of  the  Union. ' ' 57 

The  Democratic  Convention,  however,  nominated  Cass  and 
Butler,  and  rejected  by  a  large  majority  the  extreme  pro-slavery 
resolutions  proposed  by  Yancey,  of  Alabama,  demanding  pro- 
tection by  the  United  States  of  slavery  in  the  territories  and 
denying  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories  the  power  to  pro- 
hibit it.  The  Mercury  declared  the  nomination  of  Cass  very  un- 
satisfactory ,58  A  meeting  of  the  Charleston  Democrats  on  June 
6th  denounced  the  proceedings  of  the  Baltimore  Convention  as 
"unsatisfactory  and  objectionable,"  but  it  tabled  as  premature 
resolutions  nominating  General  Taylor,  and  decided  to  await 
developments  before  expressing  any  preference  for  the  presi- 
dency. 59  Taylor's  acceptance  of  the  Whig  nomination  left  the 
Democrats  of  South  Carolina  more  than  ever  undecided  as  to 
whom  they  should  give  their  support.  The  situation  was  rather 
fittingly  expressed  in  a  toast  offered  at  a  Fourth  of  July  cele- 
bration in  Saint  Paul's  Parish:  "General  Cass  and  General 
Taylor :  the  two  horns  of  a  dilemma  to  Southern  patriots.  We 
want  no  statesman  who  has  knuckled  to  abolitionists,  or  who 
marches  under  the  banner  of  Whiggery.  Yet  if  compelled  to 
elect  will  prefer  the  advocate  of  a  Tariff  to  the  approver  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso."80 

"Ibid.,  May  20,  27,  1848. 

8T  Ibid.,  April  24,  May  20,  1848. 

M  Ibid.,  May  30,  June  2,  1848. 

*•  Ibid.,  June  7,  1848 ;  Courier,  June  7,  1848. 

w  Mercury,  July  8,  1848. 


20  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

A  distinct  division  of  sentiment  on  the  course  South  Caro- 
lina should  pursue  soon  became  apparent.  On  July  20th,  the 
situation  was  cleared  somewhat  by  a  meeting  in  Charleston  of 
Taylor  Democrats.  These  declared  themselves  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  support  the  nominee  of  the  Democratic  Convention 
"whose  opinion,  on  a  subject  to  them  of  paramount  importance, 
has  been  marked  by  singular  vacillation ; ' '  and  they  concurred 
in  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor  "made  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  irrespective  of  parties,  and  independent  of 
politicians."  Fillmore,  however,  they  could  not  accept;  and 
W.  0.  Butler,  the  regular  Democratic  nominee,  was  named  as 
their  choice  for  the  vice-presidency. 61  In  other  districts  Cass 
and  Taylor  meetings  were  held,  and  the  state  was  soon  in  the 
midst  of  a  heated  and  somewhat  bitter  campaign.  On  August 
21st  a  Cass  and  Butler  meeting  in  Charleston,  held  contrary  to 
the  advice  of  Calhoun, 62  condemned  Whig  latitudinarianism 
and  its  "whole  brood  of  Federalist  measures,"  and  expressed 
its  preference  for  Cass  because  he  was  a  Democrat  and  also  be- 
cause he  was  opposed  to  and  denied  the  constitutionality  of  con- 
gressional legislation  on  the  matter  of  slavery. 63  On  the  same 
day  the  Mercury,  after  a  long  period  of  hesitation,  came  out  for 
Cass, 64  having  concluded,  that  though  Cass  had  not  given  all  the 
pledges  that  were  desired,  Taylor  had  given  none,  and  that  the 
friends  of  Cass  at  the  North  were  more  favorable  to  the  South 
than  were  the  friends  of  Taylor.  65  Calhoun  remained  neutral. 
In  both  candidates  he  saw  much  to  condemn  and  little  to  ap- 
prove, and  desired  to  be  regarded  as  taking  no  part  between  the 


"Ibid.,  July  21,  1848. 

M  J.  M.  Walker  to  Hammond,  Aug.  22,  1848,  Hammond  MSS. 

'*  Courier,  Aug.  22,  1848. 

M  Mercury,  Aug.  21,  1848. 

"  Ibid.,  Aug.  5,  1848. 


THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AND  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848        21 

two,  but  as  standing  ready  to  support  or  oppose  the  successful  as 
his  measures  might  or  might  not  accord  with  his  own. ee 

As  presidential  electors  were  chosen  by  the  legislature,  the 
only  method  by  which  the  people  of  the  state  could  express  their 
preference  between  the  presidential  candidates  was  in  the  choice 
of  legislators  who  had  pledged  themselves  for  Cass  or  for  Taylor. 
In  Charleston  the  contest  seems  to  have  been  the  most  hotly  con- 
tested. Here,  as  well  as  in  some  other  districts  and  parishes, 
both  Cass  and  Taylor  tickets  were  named.  The  elections,  which 
occurred  October  9th  and  10th,  resulted  in  a  victory  for  the 
partisans  of  Cass.  Charleston,  with  the  aid  of  the  small  Whig 
minority,  it  was  alleged, 67  elected  a  Taylor  man  to  the  United 
States  Congress,  a  Taylor  man  to  the  State  Senate,  and  thirteen 
Taylor  and  four  Cass  Democrats  to  the  House. 6S  The  legislature, 
called  into  special  session  for  the  purpose,  chose  Cass  electors  by 
a  vote  of  129  to  27. e9 


84  Calhoun  to  editor  of  the  Mercury,  Sept.  1.,  1848,  published  in  ibid., 
Sept.  6,  1848. 

"Mercury,  Oct.  23,  1848. 

68  lUd.,  Oct.  13,  1848. 

"*  8.  C.  House  Journal,  extra  sess.,  1848,  11. 


22  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 


CHAPTER  II 

UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849 

Contrary  to  the  expectations  of  the  Whigs, x  the  temporary 
division  in  the  ranks  of  the  South  Carolina  Democrats  did  not 
prove  permanent.  Calhoun  and  other  leaders  sought  to  prevent 
a  bitterness  in  the  campaign  which  would  divide  the  state  and 
weaken  her  position  in  opposition  to  the  aggressions  upon  slav- 
ery. For  a  time  the  campaign  had  tended  to  distract  attention 
from  all  other  questions,  but  even  before  it  was  over  the  still 
unsettled  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  was  pushed  to 
the  front. 

In  August,  speaking  in  Charleston,  Calhoun  urged  modera- 
tion and  kindly  feeling  in  the  conduct  of  the  campaign,  for  he 
thought  that  the  time  was  soon  to  come  when  the  united  energies 
of  the  South  would  be  needed  for  the  struggle  with  the  growing 
spirit  of  abolition.  He  still  clung  to  the  idea  that  a  Southern 
party  might  enable  the  South  to  command  her  own  terms  in 
cooperation  with  a  party  in  the  North.  "But,"  he  continued, 
"if  this  fails  to  arrest  the  spirit  of  aggression  now  so  manifest, 
and  the  alternative  is  forced  upon  us  of  resistance  or  submission, 
who  can  doubt  the  result.  Though  the  Union  is  dear  to  us,  our 
honor  and  our  liberty  are  dearer.  And  we  would  be  abundantly 
able  to  maintain  ourselves.  The  North  is  rich  and  powerful  but 
she  has  many  elements  of  division  and  weakness ....  The  South, 
on  the  contrary,  has  a  homogeneous  population,  and  a  common 


Robert  Toombs  to  John  J.  Crittenden,  Sept.  27,  1848,  Toombs,  Ste- 
phens and  Cobb  Correspondence,  128;  "  Charlestonian "  to  N.  Y.  Courier,  in 
Mercury  Oct.  25,  1848. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  23 

bond  of  union,  which  would  render  us  powerful  and  united. 
Wherever  Southern  men  have  been  placed  upon  the  battlefield 

they  have  shown  themselves  in  generalship  and  soldiership 

at  least  equal  to  those  of  any  other  section  of  the  Union.  Our  Cus- 
tom Houses  would  afford  us  a  revenue  ample  for  every  purpose. 
....  In  whatever  aspect,  then,  we  consider  it  we  will  be  as  well 
prepared  for  the  struggle  as  the  North. ' ' 2 

Never  had  Calhoun  spoken  so  openly  of  the  possibility  of 
disunion.  Heretofore,  South  Carolina  had  protested  and  threat- 
ened but,  restrained  by  Calhoun,  her  citizens  had  for  the  most 
part  refrained  from  an  advocacy  of  any  specific  plan  of  action 
which  would  have  placed  the  state  in  advance  of  the  others  of  the 
South.  The  idea  of  a  Southern  convention  had  been  suggested 
as  early  as  the  fall  of  1847,  and  as  we  have  seen,  Calhoun  had 
written  with  this  object  in  view  to  some  of  his  supporters  out- 
side of  South  Carolina.  But  in  the  opinion  of  one  of  these,  the 
people  of  no  state,  save  South  Carolina,  were  then  ready  for  such 
action, 3  and  the  occasional  suggestion  of  a  Southern  conven- 
tion had  failed  to  arouse  any  enthusiasm.  Concerted  action  by 
the  South  was  now  demanded  generally  throughout  South  Caro- 
lina. Representative  Burt,  a  close  friend  of  Calhoun,  recom- 
mended a  convention  of  slave  holding  states  as  the  only  means 
whereby  the  South  could  save  herself  from  the  ultimate  destruc- 
tion of  slavery.  4  A  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Saint  Peter's 
Parish,  September  9,  recommended  the  call  of  a  Southern  con- 
vention and  the  adoption,  if  necessary,  of  "startling  measures" 
to  preserve  the  honor,  liberty,  lives  and  property  of  the  South, 

2  Mercury,  Aug.  21,  1848.  Calhoun  found  it  impossible  to  write  out  his 
remarks  in  full,  but  considered  this  report  of  his  speech  as  good  as  could  be 
expected.  See  his  letter  to  the  editor,  in  ibid.,  Sept.  6,  1848. 

*  Wilson  Lumkin  to  Calhoun,  Nov.  18,  1847,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
1135-1139. 

'Speech  at  Abbeville,  Sept.  4,  Abbeville  Banner,  Sept.  9,  quoted  in 
Mercury,  Sept.  12.  and  Greenville  Mountaineer,  Sept.  15,  1848. 


24  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

and  belligerently  declared  the  proper  forum  for  debate  on  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  "the  field  of  battle,  where  our  muskets, can  be 
the  orators,  powder  and  ball  the  argument. ' ' 5 

The  meeting  which  attracted  most  attention,  however,  and 
whose  resolutions  seem  to  have  met  with  the  greatest  approval, 
was  that  of  Fairfield  District,  held  at  Winnsboro  Court  House, 
November  6.  The  first  resolution  declared  that  the  effort  to 
exclude  the  Southern  states  from  the  territories  was  calculated 
to  degrade  them  and  ultimately  to  destroy  slavery  ''by  circum- 
scribing its  limits  and  rendering  it  valueless ; ' '  that  such  exclu- 
sion would  be  a  gross  violation  of  the  constitution,  and  "must 
tend  to  sever  the  bonds  of  the  Union. ' '  The  second  characterized 
the  passage  of  the  Oregon  territorial  bill  with  the  prohibition 
of  slavery,  "a  gratuitous  insult  to  the  South."  The  third  pro- 
tested against  the  injustice  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  but  ex- 
pressed a  willingness  to  acquiesce  in  its  extension  to  the  Pacific 
"as  a  final  settlement  of  the  question."  The  fourth  resolution 
expressed  attachment  to  the  Union  but  declared  it  "unworthy 
of  preservation  when  it  shall  cease  to  serve  the  great  end  and  ob- 
ject of  its  creation — 'to  secure  equal  rights  and  equal  privileges 
to  all '. ' '  The  fifth  declared  the  preference  of  the  meeting  for  a 
Southern  convention  or  concerted  action  by  the  legislatures  of 
the  states  as  the  most  effectual  remedy,  yet  claimed  for  South 
Carolina,  should  the  other  states  decline  to  act  in  concert  with 
her,  the  right  to  determine  for  herself  the  extent  of  her  griev- 
ances as  well  as  the  time,  mode  and  measure  of  redress.  Finally, 
the  sixth  resolution  declared  that  the  passage  by  Congress  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  or  any  similar  measure,  or  "the  submission 
by  Congress  to  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  territories  them- 
selves south  of  36°  30',"  would  be  cause  for  decided  action  on 
the  part  of  the  whole  South;  and  it  authorized  the  immediate 

'Mercury,  Sept.  20,  1848. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  25 

representative  of  Fairfield  district  in  Congress  in  such  event  to 
vacate  his  seat  and  return  home. 

The  Fairfield  meeting  also  appointed  a  committee  of  twenty- 
one  to  correspond  throughout  the  South  and  endeavor  to  bring 
about  concert  and  harmony  of  action.  This  committee,  of  which 
John  H.  Means  was  chairman,  issued  a  few  weeks  later  an  Ad- 
dress to  the  South  in  which  it  declared  that  nothing  short  of  the 
entire  manumission  of  all  slaves  and  the  elevation  of  them  to  po- 
litical equality  with  their  masters  would  ever  satisfy  the  North, 
and  urged  that  "self-respect,  the  safety  of  our  institutions,  our 
duty  to  posterity,  all  summon  us  to  resistance,  and  should  the 
bonds  of  the  Union  be  shattered  into  atoms,  let  not  the  sin  rest 
upon  us,  but  upon  those  who  by  a  long  series  of  indignities,  have 
goaded  us  into  madness. ' '  6 

The  newspapers  of  the  state  were  almost  unanimous  in  urg- 
ing resistance.  The  South  Carolinian  (Columbia)  demanded  that 
the  South  ' '  show  her  enemies  that  whilst  we  sustain  the  Union  in 
a  spirit  of  justice  and  even  compromise,  we  will  never  consent 
to  remain  in  it  as  the  oppressed  bearers  of  burdensome  exactions, 
and  forever  be  harassed  by  unjust  and  unholy  attacks  upon  our 
prosperity  and  institutions. ' '  The  Palmetto  State  Banner  urged 
the  South  to  prepare  for  the  contest,  "even  though  that  contest 
be  one  of  death  and  blood."  The  Sumter  Banner  hoped  that 
South  Carolina  would  take  the  lead  in  organizing  a  Southern 
convention  to  pledge  the  South  to  equality  in  the  Union  or  se- 
cession from  it.  The  Spartan  and  the  Pendleton  Messenger 
urged  approval  of  the  Fairfield  resolutions  by  other  districts. 
The  Abbeville  Banner  advocated  resistance  to  the  proposed  re- 


8  Proceedings  of  the  Fairfield  meeting,  in  Mercury,  Nov.  16,  1848,  and 
South  Carolinian,  Nov.  14,  1848.  "Address  of  the  Fairfield  Committee  of 
Correspondence  to  the  South,"  in  ibid.,  Feb.  27,  1849,  and  Spartan,  Mar.  6, 
1849. 


26  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

strietion  of  slavery  in  the  territories  "if  needs  be  at  a  sacrifice 
of  the  Union."7 

Even  allowing  for  all  possible  discount  of  these  and  similar 
violent  outbursts,  it  is  quite  apparent  that  there  existed  in  South 
Carolina  a  determination  to  resist  the  application  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  to  the  territories  recently  acquired  from  Mexico — at 
least  to  that  part  of  them  south  of  36°  30'.  But  as  to  the  mode 
of  resistance  and  even  as  to  the  wisdom  and  desirability  of  much 
agitation  in  South  Carolina  on  the  question,  there  was  some  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  Calhoun  worked  now,  of  course,  for  united 
Southern  action  by  means  of  a  convention  of  the  slave-holding 
states.  He  probably  realized  at  this  time,  as  his  later  activity  in 
this  respect  clearly  indicates,  and  others  certainly  did,  that  any 
precipitate  action  on  the  part  of  South  Carolina,  any  attempt  at 
assumption  of  leadership  by  her,  would  be  detrimental  to  the 
end  he  had  in  view.  In  Charleston,  the  Taylor  Democrats  in- 
duced their  opponents  who  had  favored  Cass  to  join  with  them 
in  advocacy  of  united  action  on  the  part  of  the  South,  and  ap- 
pointed a  committee  of  correspondence  to  work  for  this  result. 
It  was  their  desire  "to  fan  the  flame"  and  get  some  other  state 
to  lead  off,  but  they  went  about  it  with  caution.  Charleston  was 
not  the  state,  and  any  definite  proposal  from  the  state  was  not 
desired. 8 

However,  it  was  difficult  at  times  to  hold  all  in  line.  It  was 
feared  that  there  was  danger  of  a  serious  attempt  at  state  ac- 
tion on  the  part  of  some  ambitious  and  impatient  leaders  in  the 
state,  and  it  was  partly  to  forestall  and  prevent  such  a  move- 
ment that  the  meeting  of  the  Taylor  men  in  Charleston  was  held 


T  These  and  others  quoted  in  Mercury,  Oct.  13,  Nov.  21,  1848. 

•  Mercury,  Nov.  2,  1848;  Courier,  Nov.  2,  1848;  H.  W.  Conner  to  Ham- 
mond, Nov.  2,  20,  1848;  Hammond  to  Simms,  Nov.  17,  1848;  Simms  to 
Hammond,  Nov.  24,  1848 ;  Hammond  MSS.  See  also  Minority  Eeport  at  the 
Fairfield  meeting,  South  Carolinian,  Nov.  14,  1848. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  27 

and  its  resolutions  adopted. 9  The  Fairfield  platform  contem- 
plated separate  action  by  South  Carolina  should  the  other 
Southern  states  fail  to  join  with  her,  and  other  expressions 
looking  to  this  remedy  were  sufficient  to  warrant  some  alarm. 
The  most  outspoken  advocate  of  independent  action  was 
Kobert  Barnwell  Rhett.  He  had  made  a  speech  in  Charleston  on 
September  23,  in  which  he  demanded  less  talking  and  more  ac- 
tion. ' '  Meet  the  question  at  once  and  forever, ' '  he  said . . . . "  bring 
your  power  to  bear  directly  on  the  question — not  through  a 
Southern  Convention  which  you  cannot  get  (and  which  if  you 
get,  may  only  breed  confusion  and  weakness  in  the  South)  but 
by  the  States Let  the  Southern  States  instruct  their  Sen- 
ators and  request  their  Representatives,  to  leave  their  seats  in 
Congress  immediately  and  return  home,  should  abolition  in  any 
of  its  forms  prevail  in  the  legislation  of  Congress. . .  .and  the 
South  is  safe.  But  if  the  South  still  sleeps  inactive,  submissive 
to  aggressions — if  no  other  state  will  maintain  her  dignity  and 
her  rights  under  the  Constitution  on  this  great  question,  let 
South  Carolina,  unaided  and  alone,  meet  the  contest.  She  can 
force  every  state  in  the  Union  to  take  sides,  for  or  against  her. 
She  can  compel  the  alternative — that  the  rights  of  the  South  be 
respected,  or  the  Union  be  dissolved. "  10  To  Rhett 's  position  the 
Mercury  gave  its  support  in  December.  While  willing  to  try  a 
Southern  convention,  it  thought  the  plan  impossible,  and  de- 
clared :  ' '  Separate  State  action,  we  believe  to  be  the  only  means 
of  redress,  and  there  is  but  one  state,  which,  by  its  unanimity, 
is  able  properly  to  begin  and  enforce  this  remedy.  That  state  is 
South  Carolina."11 


•Chas.  Evening  News,  quoted  in  Mercury,  Nov.  21,  1848;  W.  G.  Si  nuns 
to  Hammond,  Nov.  11,  1848,  Hammond  MSS.;  H.  W.  Conner  to  Calhoun, 
Nov.  2,  1848,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  1184-1185. 

10  Courier,  Sept.  29,  1848 ;  Mercury,  Sept.  29,  1848. 

"/&«*.,  Dee.  11,  1848. 


28  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

The  South  Carolina  legislature,  meeting  in  November,  was 
called  upon  to  set  forth  officially  the  position  of  the  state.  Gov- 
ernor David  Johnson  devoted  about  one-fourth  of  his  message 
at  the  opening  of  the  session  to  a  consideration  of  the  slavery 
question.  Throughout  it  was  moderate  in  tone,  and  the  recom- 
mendations therein  made  met  the  very  decided  approval  of  the 
conservative  element  in  the  state. 12  The  time  for  action,  he 
thought,  would  not  arrive  until  the  question  of  slavery  in  the 
territories  should  be  settled  against  the  South.  Until  such  a 
time  had  arrived  it  could  not  be  expected  that  either  the  friends 
of  Polk,  before  his  administration  had  expired,  or  the  friends  of 
Taylor,  after  the  inauguration  of  the  new  administration,  would 
be  willing  to  act  in  anticipation  that  the  rights  of  the  South 
would  be  invaded,  for  each  believed  that  the  presidential  veto 
would  be  used  against  the  Wilmot  Proviso..  Yet  every  conting- 
ency ought  to  be  provided  for,  and  no  time  lost  in  projecting 
means  to  unite  the  slaveholding  states  in  common  action  when 
the  occasion  should  arise.  Free  discussion  and  interchange  of 
opinion  would  greatly  promote  this  object.  No  state  acting 
alone  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  all  others  could  hope  for 
success.  Unity  of  time  and  concert  of  action  were  indispensible, 
and  a  Southern  convention,  the  governor  thought,  was  the  best 
means  of  obtaining  this. 13 

In  the  legislature  resolutions  expressing  sentiments  in  ac- 
cord with  those  of  the  governor  were  introduced. 14  Some  mem- 
bers, however,  desired  a  bolder  stand  and  proposed,  that,  in  the 
event  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territories  south  of  the 
line  36°  30',  the  representatives  and  senators  in  Congress  from 
South  Carolina  should  vacate  their  seats  and  the  legislature  of 


"Courier,  Nov.  30,  1848. 

US.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1848,  26-28. 

14  8.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1848,  46 ;  House  Journal,  1848,  96-97. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  29 

the  state  'be  summoned  to  take  the  necessary  action. 15  These 
resolutions  indicated  the  differing  views  of  those  who  looked  to 
other  states  for  leadership  in  concerted  action  and  those  who 
wished  independent  action  and  leadership  by  South  Carolina. 
However,  none  of  these  resolutions  were  brought  to  a  vote.  Cal- 
houn  was  in  Columbia  on  his  way  to  Washington  and  was  invited 
to  a  seat  on  the  floor  of  the  legislature. 16  It  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  the  action  taken  by  the  legislature  was  in  perfect 
accord  with  his  wishes.  A  joint  committee  on  federal  relations 
reported  the  following  resolution  which  was  adopted,  after  pro- 
test on  the  part  of  some  few  who  still  desired  prompt  and  vig- 
orous action, 17  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  both  houses : 

"Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  time  for  discussion,  by 
the  slaveholding  states,  as  to  their  exclusion  from  the  territory, 
recently  acquired  from  Mexico,  has  passed;  and  that  this  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  representing  the  feelings  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  is  prepared  to  cooperate  with  her  sister  states  in  re- 
sisting the  application  of  the  principles  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
to  such  territory,  at  any  and  every  hazard. ' ' 18 

In  Congress  the  hostility  to  slavery  was  growing.  The  Clay- 
ton Compromise,  which  Calhoun  supported,  had  failed  in  the 
House,  and  the  Senate  had  been  forced  to  accept  the  Oregon 
territorial  bill  stripped  of  its  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise line  to  the  Pacific.  Early  in  the  second  session  of  the  Thir- 
tieth Congress,  the  House  instructed  the  committee  on  terri- 
tories to  report  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  New  Mexico  and 
California  and  excluding  slavery  therefrom. 19  On  December  21, 
it  adopted  a  resolution  instructing  the  committee  on  the  District 


15  8.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1848,  13,  39 ;  House  Journal,  1848,  95. 

"  S,  C.  Senate  Journal,  1848,  61 ;  South  Carolinian,  Dec.  8,  1848. 

"Mercury,  Dec.  14,  1848. 

US.  C.  Reports  and  Resolutions,  1848,  147. 

"Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.,  39. 


30  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

of  Columbia  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  prohibition  of  the  slave 
trade  within  the  District. zo  This  action  caused  great  excite- 
ment among  the  Southern  members  who  met  in  caucus  the  fol- 
lowing evening  and  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  an  ad- 
dress to  the  people  of  the  Southern  states.  This  action  resulted 
in  the  adoption,  January  22,  of  a  document  drawn  up  by  Cal- 
houn  and  only  slightly  modified  by  the  caucus,  ' '  The  Address  of 
the  Southern  Delegation  in  Congress  to  their  Constituents. ' '  It 
was  signed,  however,  by  only  two  Whigs  and  forty-six  Demo- 
crats, and  was  supported  by  the  unanimous  delegations  of  only 
two  states,  Mississippi  and  South  Carolina. 21 

The  Southern  Address  began  with  a  resume  of  the  slavery 
question  in  the  United  States  since  the  formation  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  attempted  to  point  out  the  growing  hostility  to  and 
increasingly  dangerous  aggressions  upon  slavery.  It  declared 
that  if  aggressions  were  not  promptly  met  and  ended,  that  if 
by  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  the  free  states 
were  permitted  soon  to  number  three-fourths  of  the  United 
States,  the  abolition  of  slavery  would  be  the  result.  To  prevent 
this  the  address  urged  union  among  Southerners  in  placing  the 
slavery  question  above  all  others.  It  concluded :  ' '  If  you  become 
united  and  prove  yourselves  in  earnest,  the  North  will  b^ 
brought  to  a  pause,  and  to  a  calculation  of  the  consequences; 
and  that  may  lead  to  a  change  of  measures,  and  the  adoption  of 
a  course  of  policy  that  may  quietly  and  peaceably  terminate 
this  long  conflict  between  the  two  sections.  If  it  should  not, 
nothing  would  remain  for  you  but  to  stand  up  immovably  in 
defense  of  rights,  involving  your  all — your  property,  prosperity, 
equality,  liberty  and  safety. ' ' 22 

» Ibid.,  84. 

21  Hearon,  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1850,  38-39;  W.  M.  Meigs 
Life  of  Calhoun,  II,  426-431. 

"Calhoun,  Worlcs,  VI,  290-313. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  31 

On  January  20,  1849,  two  days  before  the  Southern  Address 
was  issued,  the  Virginia  legislature  adopted  a  new  set  of  resolu- 
tions. These  reaffirmed  the  position  taken  two  years  previously, 
and  in  addition  they  declared  that  the  abolition  'by  Congress  of 
slavery  or  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would  be  a 
direct  attack  upon  the  institutions  of  the  Southern  states  to  be 
resisted  at  every  hazard.  They  furthermore  advanced  Virginia 
to  a  position  not  yet  assumed  by  any  other  Southern  state,  by 
requesting  the  governor,  in  the  event  of  the  passage  by  Congress 
of  the  above  mentioned  objectionable  legislation  or  of  the  Wil- 
mot  Proviso,  immediately  to  convene  the  legislature  "to  consider 
the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. "  23  In  Florida,  also,  the  legis- 
lature pledged  the  state  to  join  the  other  Southern  states  "in 

taking  such  measures  for  the  defense  of  our  rights as  the 

highest  wisdom  of  all  may,  whether  through  a  Southern  Conven- 
tion or  otherwise,  suggest  and  devise. ' ' 24  Even  the  Whig  legis- 
lature of  North  Carolina  adopted  resolutions,  noticeably  pacific 
in  tone  nevertheless,  declaring  unjust  and  unconstitutional  the 
abolition  of  slavery  or  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia and  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  advo- 
cating the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the 
Pacific. 25  Missouri  also  expressed  a  willingness  for  such  a  set- 
tlement, and  declared  her  readiness  to  cooperate  "with  the 
slaveholding  states  in  such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  necessary 
for  our  mutual  protection  against  the  encroachments  of  northern 
fanaticism. ' ' 28 

In  South  Carolina,  public  meetings  in  practically  every 
district  and  parish  gave  prompt  and  emphatic  endorsement  to 
the  Southern  Address  and  to  the  resolutions  of  Virginia,  Florida 


"Laws  of  Virginia,  1848-49,  257. 

**  Jan.  13,  1849.    30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Sen.  Misc.  Doc.,  No.  58. 
n  Jan.  27,  1849.    30  Cong.,  2  Bess.,  House  Misc.  Doc.,  No.  54. 
*  Mar.  10,  1849.    31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Sen.  Misc.  Doc.,  No.  24. 


32  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

and  North  Carolina.  They  professed  a  willingness  on  the  part 
of  the  people  of  South  Carolina  to  cooperate  with  the  Southern 
states,  and  declared  that  unless  a  firm  and  united  stand  were 
taken  disunion  or  abject  submission  to  wrong  would  soon  become 
the  only  alternative.  But  they  did  not  insist  that  this  was  now 
the  only  alternative,  and,  for  the  most  part,  they  did  not  propose 
that  any  definite  action  be  taken  by  South  Carolina.  The  chief 
advance  beyond  previous  positions  was  the  taking  of  the  first 
steps  in  organization  for  resistance.  In  most  districts  and  par- 
ishes Committees  of  Safety  and  Correspondence  were  appointed, 
charged  with  the  duty  of  reconvening  the  meetings  when  it 
should  be  deemed  necessary  and  of  conducting  correspondence 
with  other  similar  committees  in  South  Carolina  and  other  states 
for  the  purpose  of  devising  proper  measures  for  their  common 
safety. 27 

The  next  and  obvious  step  after  local  organization  had  been 
made  was  soon  taken.  A  Kershaw  District  meeting,  held  March 
3,  at  Camden,  adopted  a  resolution  requesting  the  various  com- 
mittees of  Safety  and  Correspondence  to  send  delegates  to  a 
meeting  in  Columbia,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  and  recom- 
mending to  the  people  of  the  state  a  system  of  non-intercourse  in 
trade  and  commerce  with  the  non-slaveholding  states. 28  The 
idea  of  non-intercourse  met  with  little  encouragement  at  this 
time, 29  but  two  days  later  a  Sumter  meeting  requested  its  Com- 
mittee of  Safety  to  invite  similar  committees  of  other  districts  to 
send  delegates  to  Columbia  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  Safety.  The  duties  of  this  committee  should 
be  to  meet  as  often  as  necessary,  to  correspond  with  similar  com- 
mittees in  other  states  and  with  the  district  committees  of  South 
Carolina,  and,  should  the  occasion  require,  to  take  measures  for 

27  See  Mercury,  and  Courier,  Feb.-Apr.,  1849,  passim. 

**  Mercury,  Mar.  9,  1849. 

"  See,  however,  South  Carolinian,  Mar.  13,  16,  1849. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  33 

the  convening  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina  with  the  view  of 
promoting  ' '  firm,  united  and  concerted  action ' '  at  the  South. 80 
Acting  on  these  suggestions,  the  Richland  Committee  of  Safety 
and  Correspondence  some  weeks  later  invited  the  several  district 
committees  to  send  delegates  to  a  meeting  in  Columbia  to  be  held 
the  second  Monday  in  May. 31 

Calhoun's  opinion  as  to  the  action  the  meeting  should  take 
was  of  course  solicited.  Non-intercourse  he  now  objected  to  as 
neither  dignified,  nor  prudent,  nor  efficient.  He  thought  that  the 
great  object  of  the  meeting  should  be  the  adoption  of  measures 
to  prepare  the  way  for  a  convention  of  the  Southern  states,  but 
what  these  measures  should  be  the  meeting  could  best  decide. 
He  did  suggest,  however,  that  the  organization  of  South  Caro- 
lina and  the  other  Southern  states  was  an  indispensable  step,  and 
for  that  and  other  purposes  there  ought  to  be  appointed  a  cen- 
tral committee. 32 

One  hundred  and  nine  delegates  from  twenty-nine  districts 
and  parishes  met  in  Columbia  May  14,  and  organized  with  the 
election  of  ex-Senator  D.  E.  Huger  as  chairman.  The  various 
proposals  regarding  the  action  the  meeting  should  take  were  sub- 
mitted to  a  committee  of  twenty-one.  This  committee  on  the 
following  day  reported  resolutions  which  were  unanimously 
adopted.  These  were  moderate  in  tone  as  compared  with  the 
press  and  many  of  the  district  meetings,  and  represent,  so  far  as 
ascertainable,  the  deliberate  opinion  at  this  time  of  the  people 
of  the  state.  The  first,  for  this  reason,  may  well  be  quoted  in 
full: 

''Resolved,  That  full  and  deliberate  examination  of  the 
whole  subject  has  forced  a  deep  conviction  on  the  Delegates  of 


10  Sumter  Banner  quoted  in  Mercury,  Mar.  10,  1849. 
81  Tri-weekly  South  Carolinian,  Apr.  10,  1849. 

^Calhoun  to  John  H.  Means,  Apr.  13,  1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
764-766. 


34  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

the  Committees  of  Safety  here  assembled  from  the  several  Dis- 
tricts and  Parishes  of  the  State,  that  alarming  and  imminent 
peril  is  hanging  over  the  institutions  and  sovereign  rights  of  the 
slaveholding  states,  caused  by  unconstitutional  and  mischievous 
interference  with  our  domestic  slavery  and  the  rights  of  slave- 
holders on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  North,  their  Legislatures, 
Courts,  and  Representatives  in  Congress,  and  by  withholding 
from  them  the  aids  and  remedies  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  arguments  and  appeals  to  cease  and  abstain  from  this 
course  of  unprovoked  wrong  and  insult,  have  been  exhausted  in 
unavailing  efforts,  which  have  only  been  followed  by  repetitions 
of  injury,  and  aggressions  more  alarming,  persevered  in  with  an 
appearance  of  concert  and  determination,  which  leaves  to  us  no 
alternative  but  abject  and  humiliating  submission,  or  a  like  con- 
cert and  determination  in  maintaining  our  constitutional  rights 
and  in  defending  our  property  and  persons  thus  wantonly  put  in 
danger.  That  South  Carolina  should  stand  prepared,  as  she  now 
is,  to  enter  into  council,  and  take  that  'firm,  united  and  concert- 
ed action '  with  other  Southern  and  South  Western  States  in  this 
emergency,  which  the  preservation  of  their  common  honor,  sov- 
ereignty and  constitutional  privileges  demands,  and  to  maintain 
them  at  every  hazard  and  to  the  last  extremity — and,  that  in 
view  of  this  alarming  condition  of  public  affairs,  a  Central  State 
Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Safety,  to  consist  of  five  members, 
be  now  raised  by  ballot,  to  correspond  with  other  Committees  and 
persons  in  this  and  other  States  with  a  view  to  such  concerted 
and  united  measures  as  may  be  expedient  in  any  emergency  that 
may  arise." 

Other  resolutions  approved  the  Southern  Address,  and  con- 
curred in  the  Virginia  resolutions  twice  adopted  by  the  legisla- 
ture of  that  state,  ' '  feeling  and  believing  that the  liberties, 

honor  and  interest  of  the  slaveholding  states  will  be  safe  under 
her  lead. ' '    And  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  Virginia  resolu- 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  35 

tions  of  1849,  they  called  upon  the  governor  of  South  Carolina, 
in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  or  any  other 
measure  abolishing  slavery  or  the  slave  trade  or  admitting  slaves 
to  vote  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  convene  the  legislature  to 
consider  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress.  The  meeting  also 
recommended  that  the  districts  and  parishes  preserve  and  per- 
fect the  organization  of  their  committees  "for  the  purpose  of 
correspondence  and  concert  of  action,  and  especially  exert  them- 
selves to  spread  useful  information  before  the  people,  and  to  de- 
tect and  bring  to  justice  all  offenders  against  our  peace  and  in- 
stitutions."  In  accordance  with  the  first  resolution  a  central 
committee  of  five  was  appointed,  consisting  of  F.  H.  Elmore, 
Chairman,  Wade  Hampton,  D:  J.  McCord,  James  Gadsden,  and 
F.  W.  Pickens. 33 

The  work  of  this  meeting  was  decidedly  conservative.  It 
had  been  urged  that  some  definite  action  be  taken  by  it,  at  least 
to  the  extent  of  devising  some  plan  of  resistance  looking  ulti- 
mately to  a  separation  of  the  Union,  and  of  inviting  the  other 
Southern  states  to  cooperate  with  South  Carolina  in  this  plan. 3* 
While  the  meeting  expressed  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  South 
Carolina  to  enter  into  council  and  take  joint  action  with  the 
other  Southern  states,  it  did  not  address  itself  to  them  or  issue 
any  invitation  for  a  common  conference  to  consider  joint  action. 

For  some  months  after  this  meeting  South  Carolina  was  ap- 
parently very  quiet.  There  was  an  almost  total  and  very  sud- 
den cessation  of  inflammatory  editorials  and  but  few  contribu- 
tors to  the  newspapers  aired  their  views  on  the  question  at  issue. 
That  there  was  some  dissatisfaction  with  the  proceedings  of  the 
meeting  of  delegates  from  the  Committees  of  Safety  was  evi- 

33  The  proceedings  of  this  meeting  are  published  in  the  Greenville 
Mountaineer,  May  25,  and  the  Mercury,  May  15,  16,  17,  1849. 

^Tri-weeTcly  South  •Carolinian,  Apr.  21,  1849;  resolutions  of  Sumter 
Committee  of  Safety,  in  ibid.,  Apr.  21,  1849. 


36  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

denced  only  by  one  meeting,  in  Sumter  County,  which  protested 
against  the  indecision  and  apparent  tameness  of  that  body  and 
declared  that  not  only  should  a  Southern  convention  have  been 
urged  but  the  time  and  place  set  for  its  assemblage. 35  But  if 
this  feeling  was  at  all  extensive,  it  found  exceedingly  little  ex- 
pression. Governor  Seabrook  traveled  throughout  the  state,  re- 
viwing  the  militia  and  telling  them  that  they  might  soon  be 
called  upon  to  defend  their  homes, 36  but  the  press  of  the  state 
made  little  reference  to  his  activities.  It  appeared  that  those 
who  dictated  the  opinions  of  the  press  and  the  policy  of  the 
state  desired  that  South  Carolina  should  keep  quiet  while  events 
which  they  desired  developed  elsewhere.  Outwardly,  the  state 
was  calm,  but  the  leaders  within  the  state  were  at  work. 

The  governor's  activities  were  not  clear,  but  they  indicate 
attempts  on  his  part  to  secure  some  measure  of  military  pre- 
paredness on  the  part  of  the  state.  On  June  6,  he  issued  a  cir- 
cular letter  to  the  Major-Generals  of  the  state  militia,  asking 
them  to  summon  a  board  of  officers  to  consider  the  defects  of  the 
militia  system  and  the  measures  necessary  for  remedying  them ; 
the  expediency  of  reestablishing  brigade  encampments;  the  ad- 
visability of  erecting  buildings  for  the  keeping  of  arms  and  am- 
munition ;  and  finally  what  steps  ought  to  be  taken  by  the  state 
to  meet  any  emergency  that  might  arise. 3T  General  D.  Wallace 
of  the  fourth  district  reported  as  regards  the  last  question,  that 
the  existing  system  was  sufficient  neither  for  the  preservation 
of  domestic  peace  nor  for  any  emergency  that  might  arise  from 
"foreign  invasion."  He  recommended  that  a  body  of  about 
seven  thousand  well-armed  minute  men  be  created  to  serve  as  a 
nucleus  about  which  the  citizen  -soldiery  could  rally.  He  ap- 
proved the  governor's  measures  to  put  not  only  Charleston  but 

"  Tri-weekly  South  Carolinian,  Aug.  11,  1849. 

**  Correspondence  of  N.  Y.  Herald,  quoted  in  Mercury,  Oct.  22,  1849. 

*  S.  C.  Eeports  and  Resolutions,  1849,  420-421. 


UNITED  ACTION  URGED,  1848-1849  37 

the  whole  state  in  a  position  for  effectual  defense.  "  Thirty 
thousand  dollars  were  spent  by  the  governor  in  the  purchase  of 
arms. 39  The  Central  Committee  interested  itself  in  the  defenses 
of  Charleston  and  conferred  with  the  governor  on  the  subject, 
but  it  is  not  apparent  what  actual  steps  were  taken.  *° 

38  Ibid.,  451-453. 

*•  Message  to  the  legislature,  S.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1849,  23. 

*•  F.  H.  Elmore  to  Seabrook,  May  30,  1849,  Seabrook,  MSB. 


38  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 


CHAPTER  III 

;>*.:.SJBLf 
THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION 

While  agitation  had  ceased  in  South  Carolina,  the  move- 
ment for  Southern  resistance  gathered  headway  in  the  other  cot- 
ton states  and  led  ultimately  to  the  assembling  of  a  convention 
of  the  Southern  states.  South  Carolina  had  been  ready  for  some 
months  to  support  this  movement  and  a  call  for  such  a  conven- 
tion could  easily  have  been  secured  from  her.  It  was  desirable, 
however,  that  some  other  state  take  the  lead  in  this  movement 
and  to  this  end  Calhoun  had  been  directing  his  efforts.  His  rec- 
ommendation of  a  Southern  convention,  made  during  the  few 
preceding  years  to  various  friends  and  supporters  throughout 
the  South,  had  not  produced  the  desired  results.  More  than  two 
years  of  almost  continuous  agitation  of  the  slave  question  in  and 
out  of  Congress  better  prepared  the  South  for  the  united  stand 
that  Calhoun  desired.  The  Southern  Address,  despite  the  fact 
that  it  failed  to  receive  the  support  of  almost  all  the  Whigs  and 
many  of  the  Democrats  in  Congress,  had  its  effect.  Mississippi, 
of  all  the  Southern  states  save  South  Carolina,  was  more  thor- 
oughly aroused  and  more  nearly  united  on  the  question  of  re- 
sistance, and  in  this  state,  under  the  direction  of  Calhoun,  the 
movement  for  a  Southern  convention  was  formally  launched. 

Several  months  of  agitation  in  Mississippi  resulted  in  a 
meeting  of  the  citizens  of  the  central  part  of  that  state  at  Jack- 
son, May  7,  1849.  Representing  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
state  the  meeting  did  not  feel  authorized  to  prescribe  any  course 
of  action.  It  therefore  recommended  that  for  this  purpose  a  con- 
vention of  all  the  people  be  held  in  Jackson  the  first  Monday  in 
October;  and  it  proposed  that  delegates  to  this  convention,  di- 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  39 

vided  equally  between  the  two  parties,  be  chosen  by  primary 
meetings  of  citizens  in  each  county. * 

The  proceedings  of  this  meeting  were  sent  to  Calhoun  by 
Collin  S.  Tarpley,  a  prominent  leader  of  the  Mississippi  move- 
ment, with  the  request  for  his  opinion  as  to  what  course  should 
be  adopted  by  the  October  convention.  Calhoun  replied  that  in 
view  of  the  fixed  determination  of  the  Nortli  to  push  the  abolition 
question  to  the  last  extreme,  there  was  but  one  promise  of  saving 
both  the  South  and  the  Union — a  Southern  convention.  The 
great  object  of  this  convention,  he  wrote,  should  be  to  issue  an 
address  to  the  other  states,  setting  forth  the  causes  of  Southern 
grievances  and  admonishing  them  as  to  the  consequences  if  they 
should  not  be  redressed,  "and  to  take  measures  preparatory  to 
it,  in  case  they  should  not  be.  The  call  should  be  addressed  to  all 
those  who  are  desirous  to  save  the  Union  and  our  institutions, 
and  who,  in  the  alternative,  should  it  be  forced  upon  us,  of  sub- 
mission or  dissolving  the  partnership,  would  prefer  the  latter. 
No  state  could  better  take  the  lead  in  this  great  conservative 
movement  than  yours.  It  is  destined  to  be  the  greatest  of  suf- 
ferers if  the  Abolitionists  should  succeed ;  and  I  am  not  certain 
but  by  the  time  your  convention  meets,  or  at  furthest  your  Legis- 
lature, that  the  time  will  have  come  to  make  the  call. "  2  To  Sen- 
ator Foote  of  Mississippi  who  likewise  had  asked  for  advice,  Cal- 
houn wrote  in  the  same  strain,  urging  that  the  October  conven- 
tion make  the  call  for  a  Southern  convention — to  save  the  Union 
if  possible,  but  at  all  events  to  save  the  South. 3  That  the  Missis- 
sippi Convention  would  act  upon  this  suggestion  was  promised 
Foote  by  leaders  of  both  parties  in  his  state. 4 


1  Hearon,  Miss,  and  the  Compromise  of  1850,  46-50. 
1  Calhoun  to  C.  S.  Tarpley,  July  9,  1849,  quoted  by  Foote  in  a  speech 
in  the  Senate,  Dec.  18,  1851,  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  seas.,  appx.,  52. 
•Calhoun  to  Foote,  Aug.  3,  1849,  Mercury,  June  4,  1851. 
4  Foote  to  Calhoun,  Sept.  25,  1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  1204. 


40  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

In  the  meantime  Governor  Seabrook  of  South  Carolina  and 
the  Central  Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Safety  had  been  sound- 
ing out  official  sentiment  in  other  Southern  states  relative  to  that 
cooperative  resistance  which  they  so  ardently  desired  and  in 
which  South  Carolina  was  fully  prepared  to  join.  With  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Central  Committee  the  governor  wrote  in  May  to  a 
number  of  the  Southern  governors,  outlining  the  impending 
danger  to  Southern  institutions  and  Southern  rights  and  inquir- 
ing as  to  what  degree  of  cooperation  could  be  expected  from  their 
states  in  measures  of  resistance  and  defense. 5  Unfortunately 
the  character  of  the  replies  cannot  be  determined  save  that  re- 
ceived from  Governor  Moseley  of  Florida  who,  though  unable  to 
warrant  cooperation  by  his  state  because  of  the  opinions  of  his 
Whig  successor,  soon  to  assume  office,  and  the  none  too  hostile 
feeling  of  many  towards  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  yet  hoped  and  felt 
convinced  "that  Florida  would  cordially  and  promptly  cooper- 
ate with  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  in  any  measure  that  those 
two  States  would  decisively  adopt  and  energetically  pursue  in 
defense  of  a  common  institution  and  sovereign  dignity. " 6  At 
any  event  it  was  decided  to  send  a  confidential  agent  to  Missis- 
sippi to  be  present  at  the  convention  at  Jackson  in  October,  and 
for  this  commission  Daniel  Wallace,  Representative  in  Congress, 
was  chosen. 7  Missions  to  other  states  probably  were  considered 


B  Elmore,  Chairman  of  the  Central  Committee,  wrote  to  Seabrook,  May 
30,  1849,  "I  do  not  now  see  any  other  Executive  to  whom  to  address  your- 
self besides  those  you  have  already  approached. ' '  Seabrook  MSS.  The  na- 
ture of  Seabrook 's  letters  is  derived  from  the  reply  of  the  governor  of 
Florida,  endorsed,  "Confidential  letter  from  Gov.  Moseley  of  Florida  May 
18,  1849."  Ibid. 

8  Moseley  to  Seabrook,  op.  cit. 

1 ' '  Letter  from  Hon.  D.  Wallace  accepting  this  confidential  appoint- 
ment to  go  to  Jackson,  Mississippi.  June  8,  1849 ' '  to  Seabrook.  Seabrook 
MSS. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  41 

and  may  have  been  sent, 8  'but  if  so,  the  reports  on  them  have  not 
yet  been  discovered. 

The  Mississippi  Convention  met  on  the  appointed  day  with 
most  of  the  counties  of  the  state  represented.  Calhoun's  letters 
were  shown  to  some  of  the  leaders  ' '  well  up  to  Southern  rights, ' ' 
but  acting  upon  the  generally  accepted  opinion  that  only  failure 
could  result  from  a  course  known  to  have  been  recommended 
from  South  Carolina,  these  leaders  endeavored  to  keep  secret 
from  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  and  from 
the  general  public  Calhoun's  connection  with  the  movement  they 
publicly  inaugurated. 9  General  Wallace  was  surprised  at  the 
eztent  of  hostility  towards  and  suspicion  of  anything  thought  to 
be  of  South  Carolinan  origin.  He  ' '  was  told  by  some  gentlemen 
in  private  that  if  South  Carolina  had  attempted  to  lead,  in  the 
struggle  for  southern  rights,  the  result  would  have  been  disas- 
trous for  the  cause.  The  Democrats  were  driven  to  their  utmost 
skill,  to  keep  the  Whigs  in  the  right  place,  and  in  order  to  do 
this,  it  was  part  of  their  policy  to  keep  South  Carolina  as  much 
out  of  sight  as  possible. ' '  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  meet- 
ing were  drawn  up  by  a  former  inhabitant  of  South  Carolina 
and  local  leader  of  the  Nullifiers  in  1832.  Because  of  the  preju- 
dice against  South  Carolina,  these  resolutions  were  not  offered 
in  convention  and  then  referred  to  the  proper  committee  ac- 
cording to  customary  procedure,  but  were  sent  informally  and 
directly  to  the  committee.  Reported  to  the  Convention,  they 
were  adopted  without  a  general  knowledge  as  to  their  author- 
ship. It  was  charged  that  Wallace  attended  the  Convention  as 
the  secret  agent  either  of  Calhoun  or  of  South  Carolina,  sent  to 
influence  its  action.  Because  of  this  suspicion  he  did  not  address 

8  Elmore  to  Seabrook,  May  30,  1849,  ' '  Now  as  to  Memminger  and  Ken- 
tucky— My  opinion  is  Yes — Now  if  you  plan  to  put  me  in  requisition  do  it 
by  putting  us  jointly  in  the  commission. ' '  Ibid. 

'A.  Hutchinson  to  Calhoun,  Oct.  5,  1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
1206. 


42  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

the  Convention  as  had  been  planned,  but  he  did  accept  a  seat  on 
the  floor  of  the  Convention.  He  was  forced  to  use  caution  in  se- 
curing interviews  with  the  Mississippi  leaders  and  some  circum- 
spection in  his  conversations  with  them.  With  a  view  to  finding 
out  the  nature  of  public  sentiment  in  Mississippi  and  what 
measure  of  cooperation  South  Carolina  could  expect  from  the 
state,  he  conversed  with  Senator  Jefferson  Davis,  Governor  Mat- 
thews whose  term  of  office  was  soon  to  expire,  General  John  A. 
Quitman,  then  the  Democratic  candidate  for  governor  and  sub- 
sequently elected,  Chief  Justice  Sharkey,  leader  of  the  Whigs, 
and  others.  As  a  result,  though  he  got  no  definte  promises,  he 
could  report  to  Governor  Seabrook  that  Mississippi  was  fully 
aroused  and  would  be  in  line  with  South  Carolina  when  the  hour 
of  struggle  should  come. 10 

The  action  of  the  Convention  was  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
opinion  expressed  by  Wallace.  Its  resolutions  took  strong  ground 
against  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  the 
prohibition  of  the  inter-state  slave  trade,  and  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso, and  recommended  legislative  provision  for  the  calling  of  a 
state  convention  should  any  of  the  above  measures  be  enacted  in- 
to law  by  Congress.  More  important,  however,  for  Calhoun  and 
South  Carolina  was  the  call  it  made  for  a  convention  of  the  slave- 
holding  states  to  be  held  at  Nashville  on  the  first  Monday  in 
June,  1850,  "to  devise  and  adopt  some  mode  of  resistance"  to 
Northern  aggression. " 


"Wallace  to  Seabrook,  Oct.  20,  1849,  indorsed,  "report  of  Gen.  Wal- 
lace, special  agent  to  the  state  of  Mississippi,"  and  Nov.  7,  1849,  indorsed, 
' '  From  Gen.  D.  Wallace  in  relation  to  his  mission  to  Mississippi, ' '  Sea- 
brook  MSS.  In  a  letter  dated  June  4,  1850,  printed  in  the  Jackson  South- 
ron, Wallace  denied  the  charge  that  he  had  attended  the  Convention  as  an 
agent  of  South  Carolina  or  Calhoun  to  influence  its  deliberations.  See  A.  C. 
Cole,  ' '  The  South  and  the  Rights  of  Secession  in  the  Early  Fifties, ' '  in 
Miss.  Valley  Hist.  Eev.,  I,  377,  n. 

"Hearon,  Miss,  and  the  Comp.  of  1850,  63-68. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  43 

The  South  Carolina  legislature  was  the  first  in  the  Southern 
states  to  meet  after  the  Mississippi  October  convention.  Gov- 
ernor Seabrook,  in  his  annual  message,  spoke  openly  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  disunion  should  all  efforts  fail  to  check  consolidation 
and  federal  aggression.  He  hailed  with  satisfaction  the  call  for  a 
Southern  convention,  the  paramount  object  of  'which,  he  said, 
was  to  preserve  the  Union  in  conformity  to  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution,  and  should  that  prove  impossible  then  to  protect 
"at  all  hazards,  the  freedom,  sovereignty,  and  independence  of 
the  members  which  compose  it."  He  suggested  that  the  gover- 
nor be  empowered  to  call  the  legislature  in  special  session,  or  to 
issue  writs  for  a  state  convention  in  case  the  Wilmot  Proviso  or 
any  similar  measure  should  be  enacted  by  Congress.  To  prepare 
the  state  for  any  emergency,  he  urged  the  creation  of  a  new  di- 
vision of  militia  fully  armed  and  equipped  for  actual  service, 
and  appropriations  of  $50,000  for  the  purchase  of  arms  and  am- 
munition and  of  $30,000  as  a  contingent  fund  subject  to  the 
draft  of  the  governor. 12 

On  the  evening  of  December  7  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture met  in  legislative  caucus,  and  hence  unofficially,  to  consider 
the  Mississippi  call  for  a  Southern  convention.  The  caucus  en- 
dorsed the  movement  and  expressed  its  confidence  that  the  peo- 
ple of  South  Carolina  would  support  any  measure  which  the 
convention  might  propose.  It  recommended  that  the  people  of 
the  state  meet  in  their  respective  parishes  and  districts  the  fol- 
lowing April  to  elect  delegates  who  should  meet  at  some  conveni- 
ent point  in  each  Congressional  district  and  there  choose  from 
each  of  such  districts  two  delegates  to  represent  South  Carolina 
at  Nashville.  Three  days  later  the  caucus  chose  as  delegates  at 
large  to  the  Southern  Convention,  Langdon  Cheves,  Franklin  H. 


"Message  of  the  Governor,  Nov.  27,  1849,  8.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1849, 
10-28. 


44  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

JSlmore,  Robert  W.  Barnwell,  and  James  H.  Hammond. 13 
Cheves  was  the  former  president  of  the  Second  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  He  was  a  planter,  long  retired  from  public  life, 
and  had  recently  refused  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate.  In 
1832  he  had  opposed  nullification  and  advocated  a  Southern  con- 
vention as  the  proper  means  of  securing  redress  and  at  the  same 
time  preventing  violence  and  disunion.  In  1844,  when  Rhett 
was  leading  a  movement  for  separate  state  action  against  the 
tariff,  Cheves  wrote  a  lengthy  and  fiery  letter  on  disunion  to  the 
editor  of  the  Mercury.  In  this  he  admitted  that  the  tariff  was 
oppressive,  but  abolition,  he  declared,  was  the  great  issue  that 
the  South  would  have  to  meet,  and  to  meet  it  the  South  should 
not  fear  to  face  disunion.  Separate  state  action  he  opposed, 
and  urged  South  Carolina  to  work  for  action  in  cooperation  with 
other  Southern  states. 14  Elmore,  a  former  member  of  Congress, 
was  president  of  the  Bank  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 15 
Barnwell  was  formerly  president  of  South  Carolina  College. 18 
Hammond  was  a  planter,  who  since  the  expiration  of  his  term  as 
governor  of  the  state  had  not  engaged  actively  in  politics.  In 
1832,  as  a  nullifier  he  had  aided  in  the  preparations  for  armed 
resistance  to  federal  authority,  and  twelve  years  later  when  gov- 
ernor of  the  state  he  had  urged  opposition  to  the  tariff  and 
abolition,  by  physical  force  if  necessary.  But  in  1848  he  doubted 
the  constitutionality  of  nullification. 17 

In  regular  session  the  South  Carolina  legislature  refused 
to  sanction  the  military  measures  proposed  by  Governor  Sea- 


"  Columbia  Tri-Weekly  South  Carolinian,  Dec.  8,  11,  1849. 

"C.  S.  Boucher,  The  Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina,  199- 
200;  Mercury,  Sept.  11,  1844;  J.  B.  O'Neall,  Bench  and  Bar  in  South  Car- 
olina, I,  137. 

"O'Neall,  Bench  and  Bar,  II,  95-96. 

"National  Cyclopaedia  of  America  Biography,  XI,  32. 

"Boucher,  Nullification  in  S.  C.,  249,  269,  276,  279;  S.  C.  Senate 
Journal,  1844,  17-20 ;  Hammond  to  Simms,  Jan.  14,  1848,  Hammond  MSS. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  45 

brook  and  appropriated  only  $7,500  for  the  purchase  of  arms. 18 
It  did  accept  the  other  proposal  made  by  the  governor  to  the 
extent  of  providing  ' '  in  the  event  of  the  passage  by  Congress  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  or  any  kindred  measure,  that  his  Excellency 
the  Governor  be  requested  forthwith  to  convene  the  legislature, 
in  order  to  take  such  steps  as  the  rights,  interest  and  honor  ol 
this  State,  and  of  the  whole  South,  shall  demand."  19  It  further- 
more adopted  a  resolution  of  full  response  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress  as  expressed  by  one 
of  them,  "that  if  slavery  be  abolished  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia by  Congress,  or  the  Wilmot  Proviso  be  adopted,  the  Union 
will  be  dissolved. ' ' 20 

The  action  of  the  South  Carolina  legislature  on  the  call  for 
a  Southern  convention  was  in  complete  accord  with  the  prevail- 
ing sentiments  of  all  factions  within  the  state.  It  signified  a 
willingness,  which  had  long  existed,  for  the  participation  by 
South  Carolina  in  cooperative  measures  for  the  defense  of 
Southern  rights,  and  it  provided  for  that  cooperation  by  means 
of  delegates,  unofficially  chosen  by  the  legislature  and  by  the 
people  in  their  primary  assemblies.  Beyond  this  it  wisely  did 
not  go.  It  did  not  attempt  to  dictate  or  even  give  expression  to 
its  views  as  to  the  proper  action  that  should  be  taken  by  the 
Nashville  Convention.  For  the  time  being  the  state-actionists 
were  silent,  for  united  Southern  resistance  seemed  probable  and 
state  action  had  been  advocated  by  them  chiefly  because  they  had 
believed  any  other  mode  of  resistance  impossible.  Open  opposi- 
tion to  the  proposed  convention  there  was  none.  There  was 
throughout  the  state  a  noticeable  dimunition  of  agitation  as 
compared  with  the  corresponding  months  of  the  two  preceding 
years.  During  the  time  intervening  between  the  appointment  of 

"  S.  C.  Reports  and  Resolutions,  1849,  310. 
"  Ibid.,  313,  314. 
"  Ibid.,  414. 


46  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

the  Central  Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Safety  in  May  and  the 
Mississippi  Convention  of  October,  there  was  an  almost  com- 
plete silence  on  the  well  worn  topics  of  Northern  aggression  and 
Southern  resistance.  Following  the  call  issued  from  Mississippi 
there  was  some  discussion  of  a  Southern  convention  but  little  of 
the  violent  agitation  of  preceding  years.  There  was  no  need  to 
agitate  in  South  Carolina  in  favor  of  the  Southern  Convention, 
and  violent  opposition  to  Clay's  proposed  compromise  did  not 
develop  until  late  in  the  spring  of  1850. 

The  purpose  of  the  Nashville  Convention  and  the  action  it 
should  take  were  variously  viewed.  In  the  Columbia  South 
Carolinian  the  proposal  was  made  that  the  Convention  nominate 
Calhoun  for  the  presidency.  Such  lack  of  understanding  drew 
forth  immediate  protests  from  other  papers  in  the  state  and 
earned  a  well  merited  rebuke  from  Calhoun. 21  The  conserva- 
tive Charleston  Courier,  which  for  the  most  part  had  maintained 
a  dignified  silence  and  had  always  spoken  with  moderation  on 
the  issues  about  which  most  other  South  Carolina  papers  raved, 
came  out  in  hearty  support  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  The 
object  of  this  Convention,  it  thought,  should  be  to  voice  "the 
united  resolve  of  the  South  no  longer  to  submit  to  aggression, 
outrage  and  insult,  but  on  the  contrary,  to  uphold  her  institu- 
tions, her  rights  and  her  sacred  honor,  'peaceably  if  she  can, 
forcibly  if  she  must. '  '  The  result  of  such  a  demand  would  be 
a  "peaceful  acquiescence  in  the  rightful  demands  of  the  united 
South — or  a  peaceful  separation  of  a  family,  in  which  there  is 
an  end  of  concord."  22  For  once  the  Mercury  spoke  wisely  and 
moderately.  It  saw  no  need  to  go  beyond  the  resolutions  of 


*  Mercury,  Nov.  14,  15,  1849 ;  Courier,  Nov.  15,  1849 ;  Spartan,  Nov.  22, 
1849;  Calhoun  to  editor  of  Carolinian,  Nov.  16,  1849,  in  Tri-WeeUy  South 
Carolinian,  May  25,  1850 ;  Calhoun  to  Hammond,  Dec.  7,  1849,  Calhoun  Cor- 
respondence, 776. 

*  Courier,  Oct.  31,  Nov.  7,  15,  30,  1849. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  47 

Mississippi;  South  Carolina  was  willing  and  waiting  for  South- 
ern defense  of  honor  and  interest ;  it  was  better  that  she  cheer- 
fully accept  the  leadership  of  others  in  the  common  cause  rather 
than  by  further  advance  endanger  the  success  of  the  Southern 
Movement. 23 

There  were  some  papers  in  the  state,  however,  not  so  pru- 
dent as  the  Mercury  nor  so  moderate  in  opinion  as  the  Courier. 
These  could  not  restrain  their  hatred  of  the  Union.  One  editor 
quite  frankly  admitted  this  sentiment:  "Let  us  not  reluctantly 
choose  between  the  alternatives  presented,  of  union,  infamy  and 
ruin  on  the  one  hand,  or  disunion  on  the  other.  Give  us  the  lat- 
ter; the  sooner  the  better."  And  again,  "We  hold  it  to  be  the 
sacred  duty  of  the  South,  enjoined  by  every  sentiment  of  pa- 
triotism, honor  and  interest,  to  demand  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union."24  Another  inspired  his  readers  with  these  sentiments: 
"  To  us  of  the  South,  the  Union  as  it  is,  is  a  curse  and  not  a  bless- 
ing. It  is  made  an  engine  of  oppression  .  .  .  We  have 
every  faith  that  the  South  will  either  have  their  rights  under 
the  Constitution  or  dissolve  the  Union. ' ' 25 

During  March  and  April  public  meetings  of  citizens  were 
held  in  the  districts  and  parishes  at  which  delegates  were  chosen, 
in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  the  members  of  the  legislature, 
to  attend  the  conventions  in  each  congressional  district  by  which 
the  delegates  to  Nashville  should  be  selected.  The  resolutions  of 
these  primary  meetings,  representing  the  opinions  of  those  in- 
terested enough  to  participate,  were  not  violent  in  tone,  nor  did 
they  attempt  to  dictate  the  action  that  the  Nashville  Convention 
should  take.  But  they  did  declare  the  opinion  that  either  their 
rights  as  they  understood  them  should  be  protected  and  guaran- 
teed or  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  ought  to  be  effected.  In  so 

n  Mercury,  Nov.  14,  15,  Dec.  1,  1849. 
14  Spartan,  Jan.  24,  Feb.  21,  1850. 
*  Winydh  Observer,  Jan.  19,  1850. 


48  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

far  as  the  terms,  "dissolution  of  the  Union"  and  "disunion" 
were  more  openly  used  instead  of  the  vaguer  "resistance  at  all 
hazards  and  to  the  last  extremity,"  these  meetings  represent  an 
advance  over  the  previous  position  assumed  by  the  people  of  the 
state.  Yet  even  at  times  when  "disunion"  was  frankly  spoken 
of  as  the  alternative  to  "submission"  there  was  also  expressed 
a  desire  and  a  hope  that  a  settlement  of  the  whole  question  at 
issue  between  the  sections  might  be  made  whereby  the  rights  of 
the  South  would  be  guaranteed,  the  Constitution  maintained, 
and  the  Union  preserved.  On  the  other  hand  there  was  occa- 
sionally expressed  the  extreme  opinion  that  nothing  but  an  entire 
separation  from  that  section  which  had  "trampled  under  foot 
the  rights  of  the  South"  could  afford  a  remedy  for  the  griev- 
ances of  the  slaveholding  states. 26 

The  meetings  of  delegates  in  the  various  congressional  dis- 
tricts, held  May  6,  1850,  contented  themselves  with  the  election 
of  delegates  to  Nashville  and  refrained  from  adopting  the  custo- 
mary reports  and  resolutions.  Of  these  delegates  the  most 
prominent  were :  R.  Barnwell  Rhett,  F.  W.  Pickens,  Civil  War 
governor,  R.  F.  W.  Allston,  Governor  of  South  Carolina,  1856- 
58,  James  Chesnut,  United  States  senator  in  1860,  and  D.  F. 
Jamison,  president  of  the  secession  convention  of  1860. *7 

Calhoun  lost  no  opportunity,  he  wrote  James  H.  Hammond, 
"to  give  the  great  cause  an  impulse."  He  urged  upon  his  cor- 
respondents in  various  states  the  necessity  of  backing  what  he 
termed  "the  Mississippi  movement,"  and  of  sending  delegates  to 
the  Nashville  Convention.  It  was  a  subject  uppermost  in  his 
mind  and  its  failure  to  meet  he  would  have  considered  a  great,  if 
not  a  fatal,  misfortune.  By  January  he  felt  assured  that  the. 

M  Mercury,  Mar.  21,  27,  Apr.  13,  16,  18,  29,  1850;  Spartan,  Mar.  14; 
Tri-Weekly  South  Carolinian,  Mar.  5,  1850;  Winyali  Observer,  Apr.  10, 
1850. 

"List  of  delegates  in  Mercury,  May  11,  1850;  Spartan,  May  16,  1850. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  49 

convention  would  meet. 28  For  a  time  it  seemed  that  Calhoun  's 
hope  for  a  united  South  on  the  slavery  question  was  about  to  be 
fulfilled.  Following  the  call  issued  by  the  Mississippi  October 
Convention  and  the  response  thereto  by  the  members  of  the 
South  Carolina  legislature,  in  Virginia,  Georgia,  Florida,  Ala- 
bama, Mississippi,  Texas  and  Arkansas,  the  legislatures  endorsed 
the  movement  and  provided  for  the  election  of  delegates.  In  ad- 
dition, the  legislatures  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi  and 
Virginia  provided  for  the  calling  of  state  conventions  in  case 
Congress  should  pass  the  Wilmot  Proviso  or  other  measures 
deemed  hostile  to  the  interests  of  slavery. 29 

It  has  been  charged  against  Calhoun  that  he  was  desirous  of 
destroying  the  Union.  His  real  desire  was  to  preserve  the  Union, 
if  at  the  same  time  he  could  preserve  what  he  considered  to  be 
the  rights  of  the  South.  He  was  undeniably  first  a  citizen  of 
the  South  and  only  secondly  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  His 
correspondence  gives  constant  proof  of  this.  On  December  27, 
1846,  he  wrote  to  his  daughter,  "I  desire  above  all  things  to  save 
the  whole ;  but  if  that  cannot  be,  to  save  the  portion  where  Provi- 
dence has  cast  my  lot,  at  all  events."  He  believed  that  unless 
the  North  became  convinced  that  the  South  was  in  earnest  and 
put  an  end  to  the  attacks  upon  Southern  institutions,  the  time 
wrould  come  when  nothing  could  save  the  South  but  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Union.  He  desired  a  Southern  convention  to  give  ex- 
pression to  these  ideas,  and  to  force  upon  the  North  the  convic- 
tion that  the  Union  was  in  danger  and  would  be  dissolved  unless 
the  demands  of  the  South  with  regards  to  the  slavery  controversy 
were  acceded  to. 

"Calhoun  to  A.  P.  Calhoun,  Oct.  22,  1849;  to  Herschel  V.  Johnson, 
Nov.  1,  1849;  to  Hammond,  Dec.  7,  1849,  Jan.  4,  1850,  Calhoun  Corre- 
spondence, 772,  773,  775,  778. 

29 H.  V.  Ames,  "Calhoun  and  the  Secession  Movement,"  in  Old  Penn, 
XVI,  247;  D.  T.  Herndon,  "The  Nashville  Convention  of  1850",  in  Pub. 
of  Ala.  Hist.  Soc.,  Transactions,  V,  213-216. 


50  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

In  the  summer  of  1849  he  still  thought  that  the  Union  might 
be  preserved,  though  he  feared  that  perhaps  the  process  of  sec- 
tionalization  had  gone  too  far  for  any  hope  of  a  continuance  of 
the  political  connection  between  North  and  South.  In  August 
of  that  year  he  wrote  to  Senator  Foote  of  Mississippi :  ' '  In  con- 
sidering it  [a  Southern  Convention],  I  assume  that  the  first 
desire  of  every  true-hearted  Southern  man  is,  to  save,  if  pos- 
sible, the  Union,  as  well  as  ourselves ;  but  if  both  cannot  be,  then 
to  save  ourselves  at  all  events.  Such  is  my  determination,  as  far 
as  it  lies  in  my  power.  Fortunately  for  us,  the  road  which  leads 
to  both,  yet  lies  in  the  same  direction.  We  have  not  reached  the 
fork  yet,  if  we  are  ever  to  do  it.  Without  concert  of  action  on 
the  part  of  the  South,  neither  can  be  saved ;  by  it,  if  it  be  not  too 
long  delayed,  it  is  possible  both  yet  may  be. ' ' 30 

Early  in  1850  Calhoun  seems  to  have  become  convinced  that 
a  permanent  settlement  of  the  whole  slavery  question  such  as  he 
considered  essential  for  a  continuance  of  the  slaveholding  states 
in  the  Union  could  not  be  made. 31  He  hoped  that  the  debate  in 
Congress  would  convince  the  South  that  it  could  not  with  safety 
remain  in  the  Union  as  things  then  stood  and  that  there  was 
little  or  no  prospect  of  any  change  for  the  better. 32  Compro- 
mise, any  settlement  short  of  his  terms,  was  unacceptable  to  him. 
The  Wilmot  Proviso  he  had  opposed  only  as  one  phase  of  the 
whole  slavery  controversy.  It  had  raised  the  issue  between  the 
sections,  but  to  Calhoun 's  mind  the  territorial  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion was  only  one  and  not  perhaps  the  most  important  aspect  of 
the  whole  question  of  slavery.  He  had  used  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
to  arouse  the  South,  but  in  the  Southern  Address  he  had  sought 
to  broaden  the  basis  for  the  Southern  movement  by  including  in 


*°  Calhoun  to  Foote,  Aug.  3,  1849,  Mercury,  June  4,  1851. 
"Calhoun  to  Mrs.  T.  G.  Clemson,  Feb.  24,  1850,  Calhoun  Correspond- 
ence, 783. 

82  Calhoun  to  Hammond,  Feb.  16,  1850,  ibid.,  781. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  51 

that  manifesto  of  Southern  grievances  every  evidence  he  could 
find  of  hostility  to  and  aggressions  upon  slavery.  He  had  been 
convinced  for  more  than  twenty  years  that  the  institution  of 
slavery  was  in  danger  and  that  the  South,  rather  than  merely  to 
repel  attacks,  should  force  the  issue.  Let  the  outposts  of  slavery 
be  carried  and  the  institution  would  be  doomed.  In  1850  the 
time  for  action  had  come;  to  force  the  issue  was  the  idea  con- 
stantly in  his  mind.  Nothing  short  of  a  permanent  settlement 
of  the  question  within  the  Union  or  a  dissolution  of  the  Union 
was  his  desire. 

"Nothing  short  of  the  terms  I  propose,  can  settle  it  finally 
and  permanently,"  he  wrote  just  three  weeks  before  his  death. 
"Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  two  peoples  so  different  and 
hostile  can  exist  together  in  one  Unon. ' ' 33  The  terms  Calhoun 
proposed  were  given  to  the  country  in  his  famous  speech  of  the 
fourth  of  March. 34  Too  weak  to  deliver  it  himself,  it  was  read 
to  the  Senate  by  his  friend  Senator  Mason  of  Virgina.  In  this 
carefully  written  exposition  of  his  views  Calhoun  stressed  the  all 
important  fact,  to  him,  that  the  equilibrium  between  the  two 
sections  had  been  destroyed;  that  consequently  all  branches  of 
the  government  were  in  the  control  of  the  North ;  and  that  as  a 
result,  in  all  questions  of  vital  interest  between  the  sections,  the 
South  would  be  sacrificed.  To  Calhoun,  of  course,  the  North  was 
the  free  states,  the  South,  the  slave  states.  Slavery,  which  the 
people  of  the  South  felt  bound  "by  every  consideration  of  in- 
terest and  safety  to  defend,"  was  the  vital  question.  He  de- 
clared that  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  anti-slavery  movement  in  the 
North  was  the  total  abolition  of  the  institution  of  slavery  in  all 
the  states,  and  that  unless  some  decisive  measures  were  taken  to 

»  Calhoun  to  T.  G.  Clemson,  Mar.  10,  1850,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 
784.  On  the  general  question  of  Calhoun 's  opinions  and  purposes  in  th« 
last  year  of  his  life,  see  ibid.,  763-783,  passim. 

*  Calhoun,  Works,  IV,  542-573. 


52  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

prevent  this,  unless  a  full  and  final  settlement  were  made,  the 
South  would  be  forced  "to  choose  between  abolition  and  seces- 
sion. ' '  The  terms  of  this  final  settlement  Calhoun  stated :  equal 
rights  in  the  territories,  faithful  fulfillment  of  the  stipulations 
relative  to  fugitive  slaves,  cessation  of  anti-slavery  agitation, 
and  a  constitutional  amendment  restoring  to  the  South  the  power 
of  protecting  herself  that  she  had  possessed  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  equilibrium  between  the  sections.  The  exact  nature 
of  his  proposed  amendment  Calhoun  did  not  here  disclose,  but  a 
posthumous  work  explains  in  general  his  idea  that  the  end  he 
sought  might  be  effected  by  the  creation  of  a  dual  executive,  its 
members  representing  the  respective  sections  and  each  possessed 
of  the  veto  power  over  all  legislation. 35  Calhoun  closed  his 
speech  with  an  appeal  for  a  frank  avowal  on  both  sides  of  what 
was  intended  to  be  done  towards  a  settlement  of  the  questions  at 
issue.  To  the  senators  from  the  North  he  addressed  himself :  "  If 
you,  who  represent  the  stronger  portion,  cannot  agree  to  settle 
them  on  the  broad  principle  of  justice  and  duty,  say  so ;  and  let 
the  states  we  both  represent  agree  to  separate  and  part  in  peace. 
If  you  are  unwilling  we  should  part  in  peace,  tell  us  so,  and  we 
shall  know  what  to  do,  when  you  reduce  the  question  to  submis- 
sion or  resistance." 

This  was  Calhoun 's  last  important  speech  in  the  Senate. 
He  had  spoken  frankly  and  presented  to  the  Senate  and  the 
country  his  alternative  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  it  was 
probably  his  hope  that  it  would  similarly  be  presented  by  the 
Southern  Convention.  He  stated  frequently  enough  in  his  cor- 
respondence his  desire  that  the  Southern  Convention  present  the 
alternative  of  justice  to  the  South,  as  he  conceived  it,  or  a  dis- 
solution of  the  Union,  but  whether  on  the  exact  terms  as  out- 
lined in  his  final  speech  it  is  impossible  to  say.  He  was  extreme- 

*"'A  Discourse  on  the   Constitution   and   Government  of  the  United 
States",  in  Calhoun,  Works,  I,  111-406,  see  pp.  391-392. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  53 

ly  anxious  that  some  of  the  delegates  to  that  convention  visit 
Washington  on  their  way  to  Nashville  and  consult  there  with 
members  from  the  South. 36  Shortly  before  his  death  he  began 
to  dictate  a  series  of  resolutions,  evidently  intended  for  this  con- 
vention, which  were  never  completed.  They  were  directed 
against  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territories  and  the  ad- 
mission of  California  into  the  Union ;  and  the  final  resolution  of 
the  uncompleted  draft  reads :  ' '  Resolved  that  the  time  has  arrived 
when  the  said  States  [i.  e.,  "the  States  composing  the  Southern 
portion  of  th  Union"]  owe  it  to  themselves  and  the  other  States 
comprising  the  Union  to  settle  fully  and  forever  all  the  questions 
at  issue  between  them. ' ' 37  This  was  Calhoun  's  final  and  well 
matured  opinion.  A  few  days  later,  on  March  31,  he  died,  leav- 
ing South  Carolina  without  a  leader  strong  enough  to  prevent 
the  bitter  internal  struggle  into  which  she  was  destined  soon  to 
fall. 

The  attitude  of  Calhoun  represented  probably  that  of  the 
majority  of  those  in  his  state  who  had  any  opinions  on  the  ques- 
tion of  union  and  disunion.  It  may  be  true,  as  Judge  Beverly 
Tucker  of  Virginia  wrote  to  James  H.  Hammond,  that  Calhoun, 
instead  of  being  the  moving  cause  of  excitement  in  South  Caro- 
lina, as  many  thought,  restrained  it  and  restrained  himself. s8 

18  Calhoun  to  Hammond,  Feb.  16,  1850,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  781. 

"  Calhoun  Correspondence,  785-787 ;  Joseph  A.  Seoville,  to  whom  Cal- 
houn dictated  the  resolutions,  did  not  know  whether  they  were  for  the  Sen- 
ate or  for  Nashville.  Seoville  to  Hammond,  Apr.  18,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 
Their  wording  is  sufficient  evidence  that  they  were  not  intended  for  the  Sen- 
ate. A  copy  was  sent  to  Hammond  but  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  used 
at  Nashville. 

M  Calhoun  ' '  died  nobly,  and  his  last  act  redeems  all  the  errors  of  his 

life I  have  heard  of  those  who  rejoiced  in  his  death  as  providential.  I 

hope  it  may  prove  so,  but  not  in  the  way  intended  by  them.  They  con- 
sidered him  as  the  moving  cause  of  excitement  in  South  Carolina.  You  and 
I  know  that  he  restrained  it  and  restrained  himself.  When  he  went  home  in 
March,  '33,  he  was  prepared  to  say  all  that  he  said  in  his  last  speech  and 
much  more  had  others  been  prepared  to  hear  it.  I  know  it  from  his  own 
lips "  May  7,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 


54  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

But  such  restraint  for  the  past  ten  years  at  least  had  been  ap- 
plied with  a  view  to  prevent  assumption  «by  the  state  of  a  posi- 
tion too  far  in  advance  of  the  other  slaveholding  states.  The 
position  he  assumed  in  his  last  speech  in  the  Senate  earned  the 
praise  of  those  who  had  privately  condemned  him  for  his  back- 
wardness. Certainly  there  was  but  little  difference  in  the  posi- 
tion of  a  man  who  demanded  impossible  conditions  for  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Union  and  those  who  believed  that  conditions 
were  such  as  to  warrant  the  immediate  withdrawal  of  the  South- 
ern states  from  the  Union.  Regarding  the  feeling  in  South  Caro- 
lina at  this  time,  a  traveler  reported  to  Judge  Tucker  that  he 
met  within  the  State  but  one  man  not  ripe  for  disunion  and  un- 
prepared to  reject  any  terms  of  compromise  which  should  leave 
the  South,  as  Tucker  said,  "without  excuse  for  the  great  step 
on  which  our  best  interests  depend. ' ' 39  The  one  exception  to 
this  sweeping  and  perhaps  hopefully  exaggerated  statement  was 
James  Louis  Petigru. 

Since  the  days  of  Nullification  the  Unionists  in  South  Caro- 
lina had  constantly  decreased  in  number  until  in  1850  there 
were  but  a  handful  of  men  who  were  willing  to  preserve  the 
Union  at  almost  any  cost.  Petigru  was  one  of  the  most  uncom- 
promising of  these.  Joel  R.  Poinsett  was  another.  The  former 
was  a  Whig,  the  latter  a  Democrat.  The  correspondence  that 
took  place  between  Richard  Yeadon,  Unionist  in  1832  and  for- 
mer editor  of  the  Charleston  Courier,  and  Poinsett,  illustrates 
fully  the  positions  of  those  of  the  old  Union  party  who  remained 
true  to  the  Union  and  those  who  had  reached  the  conclusion, 
however  unwillingly,  that  its  dissolution  might  be  necessary. 

Yeadon  wrote  Poinsett  on  March  1,  1850  that  the  Charleston 
leaders  wished  to  send  him  as  a  delegate  to  Nashville,  "having 
in  view  the  preservation,  if  practicable,  of  our  mighty  and  glor- 


•Ibid. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  55 

ious  union,  but  the  assertion  and  maintenance,  at  all  hazard  and 
in  any  event,  of  the  just  rights  and  constitutional  equality  of 
the  Southern  States."  Poinsett  replied  expressing  a  willingness 
to  attend  the  Nashville  Convention,  "provided  its  objects  are 
'limited  to  the  preservation  of  our  mighty  and  glorious  union 
and  the  constitutional  equality  of  the  Southern  states.'  But," 
he  continued,  "if  'their  assertion  and  maintenance  at  all  haz- 
ards and  in  any  event'  be  meant  to  imply  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union  of  the  United  States,  I  feel  constrained  to  declare  that  I 
never  will  by  any  act  of  mine  sanction  such  an  alternative." 
And  when  informed  that  a  public  avowal  of  such  sentiments 
would  make  impossible  his  election  as  a  delegate,  he  flatly  re- 
fused to  serve.  In  explanation  he  continued :  "  I  have  been  long 
aware  that  the  district  and  state  are  prepared  for  the  last  ex- 
tremity; and,  as  I  conscientiously  believe  such  a  measure  will 
lead  to  immediate  civil  war  and  too  probably  terminate  in  de- 
feat and  humiliation,  it  would  be  wrong  in  me  to  yield  to  the 
torrent  of  public  opinion  and  by  any  act  of  mine  aid  in  the 
perpetration  of  our  own  destruction.  ...  If  the  revolu- 
tion comes,  for  there  can  be  no  peaceable  secession  or  dissolution 
of  the  union,  I  am  ready  to  take  my  part  and  stand  among  the 
sons  of  the  South  in  the  ranks  or  in  organizing  our  defenses  but 
without  hope. "  40  A  little  later  Poinsett  refused  to  permit  him- 
self to  be  considered  as  a  possible  delegate  from  the  fourth  Con- 

40  Richard  Yeadon  to  Joel  E.  Poinsett,  Mar.  1,  1850 ;  Poinsett  to  Yea- 
don,  Mar.  6,  18,  1850.  In  a  draft  of  his  letter  of  Mar.  18,  Poinsett  wrote 
and  then  crossed  out  the  following:  "I  may  be  wrong  but  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  same  minds  and  the  same  views  which  governed  them  at  the  ban- 
quet which  drew  from  the  great  man  [Jackson]  this  celebrated  sentiment 
[Our  Union,  it  must  be  preserved]  are  again  at  work  for  evil.  They  are 
nearer  the  attainment  of  their  object  now  than  they  were  then ;  but  they  are 
the  more  near  to  their  own  destruction;  for  the  revolution  will  surely  over- 
whelm them  in  its  mighty  billows. ' '  Poinsett  MSS.  Jackson 's  famous 
toast  was  given  at  the  Jefferson  birthday  dinner  of  the  South  Carolina 
group  in  Washington,  Apr.  15,  1830.  See  J.  S.  Bassett,  Life  of  Andrew 
Jackson,  II,  554-555. 


56  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

gressional  district.  Unable  to  sanction  the  alternative  of  disso- 
lution in  the  last  resort,  which  the  people  of  Marion  and  Darling- 
ton had  publicly  avowed,  he  however  made  no  public  opposition 
to  the  movement  at  this  time,  for  he  did  not  desire  to  weaken  in 
the  slightest  degree  the  effect  of  the  demonstration  on  the  part  of 
the  South.  41  Nor  did  anyone  in  South  Carolina  now  speak  out 
in  opposition  to  the  Nashville  Convention  and  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union  which  was  expected  to  follow  it. 

The  effect  upon  old  Union  men  of  anti-slavery  agitation  is 
illustrated  by  the  position  that  Yeadon  took.  ''Ardent  as  has 
been  and  still  is  my  devotion  to  the  Union — , ' '  he  wrote,  ' '  deeply 
as  I  would  deplore  its  dissolution  as  a  dire  calamity  to  our  coun- 
try,— South  as  well  as  North — and  to  mankind — yet  am  I  con- 
vinced that  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  or  any  equiva- 
lent hostile  and  unconstitutional  action  of  Congress,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery,  would  be  a  justifying  cause  of  disunion,  and  im- 
pose it  on  the  South  as  a  duty  and  a  necessity.  If  we  submit  to 
such  an  aggression  ...  we  will  but  encourage  our  polit- 
ical and  fanatic  foes  to  put  their  feet  on  our  necks  and  accom- 
plish our  destruction  and  our  ruin. ' ' 42  Ex-governor  David 
Johnson,  another  old  Unionist  leader,  likewise  could  not  but  de- 
spair of  the  Union  because  of  the  war  against  slave  owners.  *3 

Of  quite  another  type  of  opinion  were  those  who  may  be 
termed  disunionists  per  se,  men  who  had  no  wish  to  save  the 
Union,  who  not  only  would  have  welcomed  disunion  but  who  were 
working  hopefully  for  disunion  and  looking  forward  to  a  slave- 
holding  Southern  confederacy.  One  of  these  was  James  H. 
Hammond,  whom  his  friend  "William  Gilmore  Simms  hoped  to 
see  succeed  Calhoun  in  the  Senate  and  help  "bring  on  the  catas- 


41  Poinsett  to  E.  Waterman,  Mar.  30,  1850,  Poinsett  MSS. 

42  Yeadon  to  Poinsett,  Mar.  9,  1850,  Poinsett  MSS. 

"David  Johnson  to  J.  S.  Sims,  May  6,  1850,  Spartan,  May  30,  1850. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  57 

trophe. ' ' 44  From  Virginia  Judge  Tucker  urged  that  South  Car- 
olina should  secede  and  form  the  nucleus  of  a  new  Confederacy, 
and  proposed  to  Hammond  that  the  Nashville  Convention  be 
used  to  demand  impossible  conditions  for  a  continuance  of  the 
Union  and  thus  force  the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  states. 45 
The  proposal  of  J.  M.  Walker,  Charleston  lawyer,  former  mem- 
ber of  the  state  legislature,  and  non-slaveowner,  was  that  the 
Nashville  Convention  "should  assume  at  once  legislative  author- 
ity and  under  the  same  responsibilities  as  rested  upon  the  first 
Congress,  declare  independence. ' ' 46 

Hammond  thought  that  the  Union  always  had  been  and  al- 
ways would  be  a  disadvantage  to  the  South  and  that  the  sooner 
the  South  got  rid  of  it  the  better.  He  feared  abolition  and  the 
reduction  of  the  South  to  the  condition  of  Hayti,  should  she  re- 
main in  the  Union  save  as  the  equal  of  the  North,  and  this  equal- 
ity he  did  not  believe  it  possible  to  obtain.  The  formation  of  a 
Southern  confederacy  he  thought  desirable  and  ultimately  in- 
evitable, and  he  saw  in  the  abolitionists  the  instruments  of  God 
working  towards  this  purpose.  He  saw  in  the  North  and  in  the 
South  two  distinct  "Social  Compacts"  and  believed  that  in- 
evitably they  must  separate.  He  believed  that  the  time  for  sep- 
aration had  come  but  he  thought  that  the  Nashville  Convention, 
being  a  non-official  body,  should  take  little  action  beyond  calling 
a  "General  Congress  of  the  South."  His  chief  fear  was  that 
before  action  could  be  taken  the  North  would  give  way  and 
promise  enough  temporarily  to  appease  the  South  and  defer  dis- 
union. 4T 

"Simms  to  Hammond,   (Apr.)   1850,  Hammond  MSS. 

48  Tucker  to  Hammond,  Dec.  27,  1849,  Feb.  8,  1850,  ibid. 

"  J.  M.  Walker  to  Hammond,  Feb.  25,  1850,  ibid. 

"J.  H.  Hammond  to  Calhoun,  Feb.  19,  1849,  Mar.  5,  1850,  Calhoun 
Correspondence,  1193-94,  1210-12;  J.  H.  Hammond  to  Major  Hammond, 
Feb.  1,  1850,  to  Lewis  Tappan,  July  9,  1850,  to  W.  H.  Trescott,  Aug.  25, 
1850,  Hammond  MSS. 


58  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Such  was  the  feeling  in  South  Carolina  just  prior  to  the 
meeting  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  In  other  Southern  states 
the  introduction  of  Clay's  compromise  plan  and  the  prospect  of 
some  adjustment  of  the  questions  at  issue  without  the  enactment 
of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  somewhat  lessened  the  disunion  sentiment. 
Especially  was  this  true  with  the  Whigs.  But  the  proposed  com- 
promise was  almost  unanimously  condemned  in  South  Carolina. 
A  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Charleston  unanimously  declared 
that  the  measures  reported  in  the  United  States  Senate  "pur- 
porting to  be  a  Compromise"  ought  not  to  receive  the  sanction 
and  support  of  the  South,  and  condemned  individually  each  pro- 
vision of  that  report.  Some  other  public  meetings  took  similar 
action.  Most  of  the  newspapers,  the  Courier  excepted  and  there- 
fore denounced  by  the  others,  found  nothing  in  the  proposed 
compromise  that  could  afford  any  satisfaction  to  the  South. 
Some  demanded  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
as  the  only  acceptable  settlement,  while  others  declared  that  no 
compromise  would  be  respected  by  the  North,  and  demanded 
disunion  as  the  only  final  settlement.  Specifically  each  of  the 
five  propositions  included  in  Clay's  plan  met  with  opposition. 
The  admission  of  California  as  a  free  state,  with  her  ' '  illegally ' ' 
organized  constitution,  was  termed  a  practical  enforcement  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  "  in  a  more  odious  and  insulting  form. ' '  A 
truer  reason  for  opposition  was  given  when  it  was  pointed  out 
that  the  admission  of  California  would  give  to  the  free  states 
two  additional  senators  and  two  representatives.  Calhoun  in  his 
last  speech  had  declared  that  the  admission  of  California  was 
the  test  question,  and  would  give  proof  whether  the  North  was 
willing  to  grant  equality  to  the  South  or  proposed  to  overthrow 
completely  the  sectional  balance  of  power.  The  plan  for  the  ter- 
ritorial organization  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  was  found  unsat- 
isfactory because  it  did  not  guarantee  the  protection  of  slavery, 
and  because  the  North  would  never  admit  those  territories  save 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  59 

as  free  states.  The  settlement  of  the  territorial  disputes  between 
Texas  and  the  United  States  was  denounced  as  an  abolitionist 
scheme  for  making  free  soil  and  ultimately  free  states  of  terri- 
tory in  which  slavery  existed  by  Texan  law.  The  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade  was  of  course  declared  an  unconstitutional  attack 
on  the  outposts  of  slavery.  Even  the  proposed  new  fugitive- 
slave  law  was  objected  to  because  it  permitted  the  escaped  slave 
a  jury  trial,  and  at  best  it  would  never  be  enforced. 48  Clearly 
South  Carolina  did  not  desire  to  compromise. 

Shortly  before  the  Nashville  Convention  met,  two  members 
of  Congress  from  South  Carolina  publicly  advised  their  constit- 
uents as  to  the  situation  in  Washington  and  gave  their  personal 
views  on  the  proposed  compromise.  Representative  Burt,  who 
had  long  since  despaired  of  securing  even  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise line,  reported  that  there  was  no  hope  of  a  satisfactory  or 
even  any  adjustment  of  the  sectional  issues,  and  declared  his  con- 
viction that  Northern  hostility  to  slavery  was  more  ferocious, 
more  universal,  more  confident  of  its  strength,  and  more  assured 
of  its  victim  than  ever  before. 49  General  Wallace  denounced  the 
Clay  compromise  measures,  dwelt  at  length  upon  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  two  races  that  would  result  from  aboli- 
tion, and  declared  that  the  people  of  the  South  had  nothing  to 
hope  .from  the  government  of  the  United  States. 50 

The   Nashville  Convention   met  June   3,  1850,    and  elected 


"Charleston  Meeting,  Mercury,  May  21,  1850;  Meeting  in  Union,  June 
3,  Spartan,  June  13,  1850;  South  Carolinian,  May  14,  16,  June  1,  1850; 
Spartan,  May  23,  1850;  Winyah  Observer,  June  19,  1850;  Mercury,  May 
20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  1850. 

**A.  Burt  to  F.  W.  Pickens  and  Drayton  Nance,  delegates  to  Nashville, 
in  Mercury,  May  28,  1850. 

"D.  Wallace  to  the  People  of  the  1st  Congressional  district  of  South 
Carolina,  ibid.,  June  5,  1850,  Sparatn,  June  20,  1850. 


60  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Judge  William  L.  Sharkey,  of  Mississippi,  president. 51  Dele- 
gates from  nine  states  were  present,  Virginia,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Arkansas,  and 
Tennessee.  In  the  South  Carolina  delegation  of  eighteen  there 
was  only  one  vacancy.  Elmore,  appointed  to  Calhoun's  place  in 
the  Senate,  had  died  late  in  May.  More  advanced  in  sentiment 
than  the  other  delegations,  that  of  South  Carolina  did  not  take  a 
very  prominent  part  in  the  proceedings  on  the  floor  of  the  con- 
vention. An  exception  to  this  was  the  speech  by  Pickens,  ending 
with  this  sentiment,  "Equality  now!  Equality  forever!  or  In- 
dependence." Rhett  wrote  the  address  of  the  convention  to  the 
Southern  states,  and  Hammond,  with  some  difficulty,  got  it 
through  the  committee  and  adopted  by  the  convention.  The  ad- 
dress reviewed  at  length  the  aggressions  of  the  North  and  the 
growing  hostility  to  slavery,  and  declared  that  the  position  of  the 
South  in  the  Union  was  growing  from  bad  to  worse.  It  con- 
demned the  compromise  measure  then  before  Congress,  but  it  ex- 
pressed a  willingness  on  the  part  of  the  South  to  accept  an  ex- 
tension of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line.  A  long  series  of  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  the  convention  set  forth  the  familiar  doctrine 
of  the  equal  rights  of  the  states  in  the  territories  and  the  newer 
doctrine  of  the  duty  of  the  Congress  to  protect  those  rights,  but 
proposed  "as  an  extreme  concession"  a  division  of  the  territory 
between  the  sections  along  the  line  of  36°  30'.  The  final  resolu- 
tion declared  that  the  convention  did  not  "feel  at  liberty  to  dis- 
cuss the  methods  suitable  for  a  resistance  to  measures  not  yet 
adopted. ' '  But  it  was  agreed  that  in  the  event  of  the  failure  of 
Congress  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  convention,  it  should  meet 

*  The  most  complete  account  of  the  Nashville  Convention  is  Herndon, 
"The  Nashville  Convention  of  1850",  in  Ala.  Hist.  Soc.  Transactions,  V, 
203-237.  See  also  St.  George  L.  Sioussat,  "Tennessee,  the  Compromise  of 
1850,  and  the  Nashville  Convention",  in  Miss.  Valley  Hist.  Bev.,  II,  311- 
347;  and  F.  Newberry,  "The  Nashville  Convention  and  Southern  Senti- 
ment of  1850",  in  -So.  Ail.  Quarterly,  XI,  259-273. 


THE  NASHVILLE  CONVENTION  61 

again  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress.  On  June  12,  1850, 
the  first  session  of  the  Nashville  Convention  came  to  a  close. 62 
In  the  opinion  of  Hammond,  its  results  did  not  amount  to  much 
save  that  it  would  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  South  in  Congress. 
"The  great  point,"  he  wrote,  "is  that  the  South  has  met,  has 
acted  with  great  harmony  in  a  nine  days'  convention,  and  above 
all  has  agreed  to  meet  again. ' ' 53 


82  Pamphlet :  ' '  Resolutions  and  Address  adopted  by  the  Southern  Con- 
vention held  at  Nashville ";  Mercury,  June  11,  12,  1850;  Ames,  State 

Documents,  263-269. 

"  Hammond  to  Simms,  June  16,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 


The  work  of  the  Nashville  Convention  was  not  such  as  to 
arouse  any  great  degree  of  enthusiasm  in  the  hearts  of  the  dis- 
unionists.  In  South  Carolina  its  recommendations  of  a  division 
of  the  territories  between  the  sections  by  the  line  of  36°  30'  was 
magnified  into  an  ' '  Ultimatum  of  the  South. ' ' *  Fourth  of  July 
toasts  offered  throughout  the  state  were  violent  in  tone  and 
frankly  in  favor  of  disunion,  should  Congress  pay  no  heed  to 
the  recommendations  of  the  Convention.  One  may  illustrate: 
"Bring  what  it  will,  Revolution  or  Disunion,  still  we  say,  36  30 
and  nothing  less. ' ' 2  The  newspapers  accepted  the  work  of  thp 
convention,  though  the  more  radical  of  them  did  so  with  no 
great  enthusiasm.  The  Mercury  thought  that  the  proceedings  at 
Nashville  received  the  entire  approbation  and  the  zealous  sup- 
port of  the  people  of  Charleston,  but  it  took  pains  to  declare  that 
any  settlement  short  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  would 
' '  blow  up  the  confederacy. ' ' 3  The  Spartan  rather  reluctantly 
supported  the  proposal  as  an  extreme  concession  by  the  South, 
and  as  affording,  if  accepted,  a  temporary  respite  from  assaults ; 
but  it  believed  an  ultimate  separation  of  the  sections  both  desir- 
able and  inevitable. 4  Public  meetings  heard  from  the  members 
of  the  South  Carolina  delegation  and  declared  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise line  the  utmost  concession  that  the  South  would  make. 


1  South  Carolinian,  June  18,  1850. 

2  This  sentiment  offered  at  Beaufort.     Proceedings  of  the  meeting  in 
Mercury,  July  12,  1850. 

"June  21,  22,  1850. 
4  July  11,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  63 

Rhett  had  hardly  returned  from  Nashville  before  he  began 
a  series  of  fiery  speeches  in  advocacy  of  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  At  Charleston,  on  June  21,  he  declared  that  the  Nash- 
ville Convention  had  proffered  settlements  which  the  North 
would  not  accept,  and  on  which  the  South  would  not  yield.  He 
prophesied  that  the  Nashville  Convention  would  rank  as  one  of 
those  great  events  which  mark  the  beginning  of  mighty  changes. 
' '  We  are  in  the  beginning  of  a  revolution ! "  he  exclaimed.  Af- 
ter dwelling  at  length  upon  the  disadvantages  of  the  Union  to 
the  South,  he  pictured  the  prosperity  and  the  advantages  to 
trade  and  commerce  that  would  follow  the  free-trade  policy  of 
an  independent  South.  And  true  to  his  previous  tendencies 
towards  separate  state  action,  Rhett  declared  that  should  all 
other  states  desert  her,  South  Carolina  would  struggle  alone  for 
liberty  and  independence. 5  In  the  following  month,  on  July  24, 
Rhett  spoke  in  St.  Helena  Parish  on  the  probable  and  possible 
destinies  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  "Treason"  had  taken 
strong  root  in  this  section,  the  reporter  wrote,  and  Rhett 's  senti- 
ments were  received  with  approbation. 6  In  August,  Rhett  and 
Yancey  were  preaching  disunion  in  Georgia.  7  Early  in  Sep- 
tember Rhett  was  again  in  South  Carolina  and  on  the  fourth  day 
of  that  month  addressed  six  hundred  citizens  of  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's Parish.  He  recited  the  usual  Southern  rights  and  South- 
ern wrongs ;  he  urged  a  Southern  confederacy ;  he  scouted  the 
idea  of  war  with  the  North,  and  predicted  that  soon  Northern 
men  would  be  seeking  admission  into  the  new  union.  The  fol- 
lowing enlightening  account  of  a  part  of  Rhett 's  speech  was  thus 
reported : 

' '  Speaking  of  the  possibility  of  the  emancipation  of  slavery, 


6  Speech  of  E.  B.  Rhett,  June  21,  Mercury,  July  20,  1850. 
*  Palmetto  Post,  quoted  in  Mercury,  Aug.   16,  1850. 

7  James  A.  Meriwether  to  Howell  Cobb,  Aug.  24,  1850,  Toombs,  Ste- 
phens, and  Cobb  Correspondence,  210. 


64  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

he  very  happily  showed  to  non-slaveholders  here,  what  their  con- 
dition would  be  in  such  an  event.  It  would  terminate  in  amalga 

mation  or  extermination Shall  the  African  rule  here  ?  .No ! 

We  will  not  be  governed  by  the  African;  neither  will  we  be  by 
the  Yankees!  We  must  secede.  Georgia  will  lead  off,  South 
Carolina  will  go  with  her,  Alabama  will  soon  follow,  and  Missis- 
sippi will  not  be  long  behind  her Within  eighteen  months 

we  will  have  the  whole  South  with  us,  and  more  than  that;  we 
will  extend  our  borders,  we  will  have  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and 
California.  Utah  already  has  slaves.  We  will  march  into  Cali- 
fornia, and  we  will  ask  them  if  they  will  have  slaves,  and  her 
people  will  answer,  Ay,  we  will  have  slaves.  And  what  of  Mex- 
ico? Why,  when  we  are  ready  for  them,  and  her  people  are 
fitted  to  come  among  us,  we  will  take  her  too,  or  as  much  of  her 
as  we  want. ' ' 8 

F.  W.  Pickens  expressed  a  view  similar  to  Rhett  's  regarding 
the  work  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  Comparing  the  condition 
of  the  South  with  that  of  the  colonies  before  the  Revolution,  he 
said  that  the  Southern  states  would  have  to  move  step  by  step, 
and  he  pictured  the  Nashville  Convention  as  the  first  step 
towards  equality  or  independence. 9  Hammond  agreed  with  the 
sentiments  expressed  by  Rhett  in  his  Charleston  speech,  but  he 
regretted  the  fact  that  they  had  been  uttered.  He  had  worked 
at  Nashville  to  overcome  the  prejudice  against  South  Carolina 
and  to  secure  a  second  meeting  of  the  convention.  He  expected 
the  struggle  throughout  the  South  against  submission  to  be  both 
difficult  and  long  unless  the  North  by  increasing  aggressions 
should  aid  the  disunionists,  and  he  feared  that  Rhett 's  words,  es- 


8  This  speech,  not  written  out  in  full,  is  reported  in  the  Mercury,  Sept. 
12,  1850.     Some  corrections  were  made  by  Ehett  in  ibid.,  Sept.   13,  1850. 
The  quotation  here  given,  then,  represents  correctly  Ehett 's  ideas,  though 
not  his  exact  words. 

9  Speech  near  Glenn  Springs,  Aug.  10,  in  Spartan,  Aug.  22,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  65 

pecially  his  reference  to  the  Nashville  Convention  as  a  revolu- 
tionary step,  would  be  used  by  submissionists  against  South  Car- 
olina and  the  resistance  movement.  ''Such  men  spoil  all  move- 
ments, ' '  he  wrote  in  disgust. 10 

In  the  meantime,  Congress  had  paid  little  attention  to  the 
so-called  ultimatum  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  The  death  of 
Taylor  and  the  succession  of  Fillmore  to  the  presidency,  with 
Webster  as  his  Secretary  of  State,  insured  the  success  of  Clay's 
plan  of  adjustment.  On  July  31,  the  bill  for  the  territorial  or- 
ganization of  Utah  without  the  prohibition  of  slavery  passed  the 
Senate.  Within  the  course  of  the  next  two  months  five  separate 
bills,  containing  substantially  Clay's  proposals,  were  accepted 
by  both  houses.  On  September  20,  the  last  of  these,  providing 
for  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, became  a  law.  In  the  House  the  South  Carolina  delegation 
supported  only  the  fugitive-slave  bill. 

The  time  had  now  come  to  test  the  sincerity  of  those  who 
had  pledged  resistance  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  to  the  admission 
of  California  with  her  constitution  prohibiting  slavery,  and  to 
the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Moderate  men,  among  them  most  of  the  Southern  Whigs,  who 
had  been  willing  to  resist  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  accepted  the  com- 
promise. The  radicals  declared  that  the  admission  of  California 
was  worse  than  the  proviso,  and  demanded  resistance  to  the  com- 
promise. But  in  only  four  states,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Ala- 
bama, and  Mississippi,  was  any  serious  movements  in  this  direc- 
tion begun. 

The  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  served  only  to  in- 
crease the  disunion  movement  in  South  Carolina  and  to  bring  it 
more  into  the  open.  Where  disunion  had  been  deemed  an  alter- 
native, it  was  now  demanded  as  the  only  course  left  for  the 

M  Hammond  to  Simms,  June  27,  to  H.  W.  Conner,  July  17,  1850,  Ham- 
mond MSB. 


66  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

South.  Even  the  Charleston  Courier  considered  the  argument 
exhausted  and  the  time  for  action  at  hand,  and  was  convinced 
that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  inevitable.  "  The  Mercury 
said,  "No  earthly  power  can  save  this  Confederacy  from  disso- 
lution. ' ' 12  Its  columns  were  filled  with  demands  for  disunion 
and  the  formation  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  The  compromise 
measures  were  denounced  as  giving  nothing  to  the  South  and 
everything  to  the  North.  It  was  declared  that  the  fugitive  slave 
law  would  not  be  enforced  or  would  soon  be  repealed. 13 

But  the  demand  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  the  for- 
mation of  a  Southern  confederacy  was  not  based  so  much  on  the 
grounds  of  the  injustice  and  unconstitutionality  of  the  recent 
acts  of  Congress  per  se,  as  on  the  conviction  repeatedly  asserted 
that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  endangered  by  a  continuance 
of  the  Southern  states  within  the  Union.  The  editor  of  the 
Spartan  wrote :  ' '  The  signs  of  the  times  disclose  the  solemn  truth 
that  we  must  give  up  the  Union  or  give  up  slavery. ' '  "  Another 
editor  stated  the  same  opinion  in  other  words  when  he  declared 
that  ' '  the  question  is  not  Union  or  disunion ;  but  simply  the  ulti- 
mate abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Union  or  its  retention  and 
Southern  independence  out  of  it. "  15  A  third,  in  one  of  the 
great  rice-planting  sections  of  the  state,  argued  that  "the  true 
issue  before  us,  is  whether  we  will  give  up  a  Union  oppressive 
and  hostile  to  us,  or  give  up  slavery  which  is  indispensibly  neces- 
sary to  our  very  existence. ' ' 16  Pamphleteers  stressed  the  same 
idea  and  urged  a  Southern  confederacy  as  the  remedy.  One 
argued  that  the  North  with  the  aid  of  new  free  states  to  be 

11  Nov.  7,  1850. 
"Oct.  21,  1850. 

"Mercury,  Oct.  23,  Nov.  7,  1850;  Spartan,  Oct.  31,  1850;  Winydh  Ob 
server,  Nov.  20,  1850. 

"Spartan,  Nov.  14,  1850. 

"  Tri-  Weekly  South  Carolinian,  Sept.  28,  1850. 

16  Winy  ah  Observer,  Dec.  14,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  67 

created  out  of  the  territories,  would  soon  abolish  slavery  in  the 
South.  The  result  would  be  political  and  social  equality  for 
black  and  white,  the  loss  of  $15,000,000,000  capital  and  an  equal 
loss  in  land  depreciation,  the  abandonment  of  the  cultivation  of 
Southern  staples  and  consequently  poverty,  distress,  and  ruin. 
As  an  alternative  he  pictured  a  prosperous  and  happy  "  South- 
ern United  States  of  America."17  Another  summarized  his 
whole  pamphlet  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-two  pages  with  these 
sentences:  "There  is  Union  and  Abolition  on  one  hand,  and  Dis- 
union and  Slavery  on  the  other.  Which  of  the  two  shall  we 

choose? Give  us  SLAVERY  or  give  us  death."  18 

Upon  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  South  Caro- 
lina leaders  looked  to  other  Southern  states  for  the  beginning  of 
resistance.  Though  urged  to  do  so,  Governor  Seabrook  decided 
not  to  call  a  special  session  of  the  legislature,  preferring  to  await 
the  movement  of  Georgia  and  one  or  two  other  states  before  com- 
mitting South  Carolina.  But  he  was  prepared,  when  the  time 
should  come,  "to  recommend  the  strongest  measure  that  has 
been  conceived. ' ' 19  On  September  20,  Seabrook  sent  letters,  in 
identical  terms,  to  the  governors  of  Virginia,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi  informing  them  that  the  governor  of  Georgia  would 
soon  call  a  state  convention,  and  asking  whether  their  respective 
states  were  prepared  to  adopt  any  scheme  to  second  Georgia  "in 
her  noble  effort  to  preserve  unimpaired  the  Union  of  '87."  He 
assured  them  that  as  soon  as  the  governors  of  two  or  more  states 


"(John  Townsend)  "The  Southern  States,  Their  Present  Peril,  and 
Their  Certain  Remedy " 

"Edward  B.  Bryan,  "The  Rightful  Eemedy.  Addressed  to  the  Slave- 
holders of  the  South. ' ' 

"Seabrook  to  Col.  J.  A.  Leland,  Sept.  18,  21,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 
That  of  Sept.  21,  printed  in  Mercury,  Sept.  27,  1850.  See  I.  W.  Hayne  to 
Hammond,  Oct.  6,  1850,  "I  think  we  should  give  them  (Ga.,  Ala.,  Miss.) 
time  to  come  up  to  us  before  we  proceed  to  extremities."  Hammond  MSS. 


68  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

should  assemble  their  legislatures  or  furnish  some  other  evidence 
on  the  part  of  their  states  "of  determined  resistance,  in  disre- 
gard of  consequences,"  he  would  call  the  South  Carolina  legis- 
lature with  a  view  to  the  adoption  of  measures  that,  so  far  as  it 
concerned  his  state,  would  "effectually  arrest  the  career  of  an 
interested  and  despotic  majority."20  This  letter  shows  that 
Seabrook  had  already  received  information  from  Governor 
Towns  of  Georgia  of  his  intention  to  call  a,  state  convention  as 
recommended  by  legislative  resolutions  of  the  preceding  Feb- 


ruary. 


21 


Seabrook 's  reason  for  not  calling  the  South  Carolina  legisla- 
ture is  indicated  by  the  letter  Towns  wrote  him  on  September  25. 
The  situation  in  Georgia,  he  wrote,  was  critical,  and  though  the 
people  were  prepared  to  act  decisively,  their  leaders  opposed  the 
resistance  measures  that  he  desired.  The  resistance  party  had  no 
strength  to  lose  by  any  premature  movement  in  any  of  the  other 
states,  and  he  feared  that  should  South  Carolina  take  any  de- 
cided step  it  would  contribute  largely  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
"true  Southern  party"  in  Georgia  and  the  election  of  a  submis- 
sion majority  to  the  state  convention.  He  suggested  that  South 
Carolina  make  no  move  until  the  results  of  the  election  should 
be  known. 22 

In  Alabama  Governor  Collier,  though  urged  to  do  so,  did 
not  think  it  wise  to  convene  the  legislature  in  special  session. 
Yancey,  however,  led  a  movement  for  the  organization  of  South- 
ern Rights  Associations  throughout  the  state,  and  made  the 
right  of  secession  the  issue  in  the  campaign  of  the  following 


20  Endorsed,   "Confidential   letter  to   the   Governors   of  Alabama,  Vir- 
ginia, and  Mississippi,  Sept.  20,   '50."     Seabrook  MSS.     Also  printed  in 
J.  F.  H.  Claiborne,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  A.  Quitman,  II,  36. 

21  For  these  resolutions  see  Ga.  Laws,  1849-50,  405-410. 

"  Gov.  Towns  to  Gov.  Seabrook,  Sept.  25,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  69 

year. 2S  In  Virginia,  the  compromise  was  accepted  without  ser- 
ious opposition.  But  from  Mississippi  Seabrook  received  a  fav- 
orable reply  to  his  letter.  Governor  Quitman  wrote  that  upon 
the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  California  he  had  de- 
cided to  call  the  legislature  in  special  session,  and  had  only  de- 
layed that  call,  to  give  strength  to  his  position,  until  the  passage 
of  the  bill  abolishing  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
His  proclamation  called  the  legislature  to  meet  the  eighteenth  of 
November.  He  informed  the  governor  of  South  Carolina  that  it 
was  his  desire  that  the  legislature  should  provide  for  a  state  con- 
vention with  full  power  to  annul  the  federal  compact  and  estab- 
lish new  relations  with  other  states.  He  looked  to  secession,  and 
he  reported  the  people  of  Mississippi  probably  ready  for  resist- 
ance regardless  of  consequences. 24 

The  news  of  the  action  taken  by  the  governors  of  Mississippi 
and  Georgia  stimulated  a  demand  from  Charleston  for  an  imme- 
diate convocation  of  the  South  Carolina  legislature.  This  pres- 
sure Governor  Seabrook  resisted  to  the  extent  of  getting  up  a 
meeting  in  Columbia  which  recommended  to  him  not  to  call  the 
legislature.  He  did,  however,  prepare  a  proclamation  calling  the 
legislature  for  November  18,  the  day  on  which  the  Mississippi 
legislature  was  to  meet,  and  only  about  two  weeks  before  the 
time  for  the  regular  annual  meeting,  with  the  idea  of  stimulating 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  Florida,  and  Virginia  to  their  duty  and 
conciliating  Georgia.  This  proclamation  he  submitted  to  Gov- . 
ernor  Towns  with  a  request  for  information  as  to  whether  or  not 
it  would  operate  against  the  resistance  party  in  Georgia. 25  Evi- 


"Hearon,  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1850,  188-189;  Du  Bose, 
Life  of  Yancey,  251-252;  G.  F.  Mellen,  "Henry  W.  Billiard  and  William 
L.  Yancey,"  in  Sewanee  Review,  XVII,  32-50. 

"Quitman  to  Seabrook,  Sept.  29,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS.  Printed  in  part 
in  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  II,  37.  Quitman 's  proclamation  in  ibid.,  43. 

M  Seabrook  to  Towns,  Oct.  8,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 


. 


70  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

dently  the  reply  from  Towns  was  unfavorable,  for  it  was  not  is- 
sued. The  reasons  for  taking  no  definite  action  in  South  Caro- 
lina, the  fear  that  the  cause  of  resistance  would  perhaps  receive 
a  fatal  blow  should  that  state  attempt  to  take  the  lead,  Seabrook 
explained  at  length  to  the  governor  of  Mississippi,  but  he  took 
pains  to  reiterate  the  assurance  that  South  Carolina  was  pre- 
pared to  second  Mississippi  or  any  other  state  ' '  in  any  and  every 
effort  to  arrest  the  career  of  a  corrupt  and  despotic  majority. 
She  is  ready  and  anxious, ' '  he  continued,  ' '  for  an  immediate  sep- 
aration from  a  Union  whose  aim  is  a  prostration  of  our  political 
edifice.  May  I  hope  that  Mississippi  will  begin  the  patriotic 
work,  and  allow  the  Palmetto  banner  the  privilege  of  a  place  in 
her  ranks?"26 

It  was  the  desire  of  the  South  Carolina  leaders,  wrote  Sea- 
brook,  that  united  action  be  taken  by  a  "Southern  Congress, 
with  full  authority  on  the  part  of  the  states  represented  to  se- 
cede from  the  Union  forthwith,  or  to  submit  to  the  supreme  au- 
thorities of  the  country  propositions  for  a  new  bargain  between 
the  states,  by  which  equality  among  the  members  of  the  confed- 
eracy and  the  protection  of  Southern  property  shall,  in  future,  be 
put  beyond  the  possibility  of  hazard."  The  secession  of  the 
Southern  states  acting  either  through  a  Southern  congress  or 
individually  on  the  recommendation  of  such  a  Congress,  pref- 
erably in  the  former  manner  and  therefore  with  a  "government 
actually  in  operation,"  or  the  presentation  of  demands  for  new 
constitutional  guarantees  for  slavery,  perhaps  Calhoun's  sugges- 
tion, was  then  the  end  sought  by  the  governor  of  South  Carolina. 
The  call  for  such  a  congress  he  hoped  could  be  secured  from  the 
Nashville  Convention  at  its  second  session,  from  the  Georgia  Con- 
vention, or  from  the  Mississippi  legislature. 27  Such  also,  in  gen- 

M  Seabrook  to  Quitman,  Oct.  23,  1850,  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  li, 
37-38. 

*  Ibid. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  71 

eral,  was  the  hope  that  Robert  W.  Barnwell,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed to  the  seat  in  the  Senate  left  vacant  by  the  death  of  El- 
more,  had  expressed  immediately  upon  the  passage  of  the  com- 
promise measures.  "I  should  think  it  inexpedient  for  South 
Carolina  to  move  alone  in  this  matter, ' '  he  wrote.  ' '  If  by  action 
any  state  will  give  assurance  of  sustaining  her,  I  should  be  de- 
cidedly for  South  Carolina  seceding,  thus  forcing  a  Congress  of 
slaveholding  states  to  assemble.  But  I  should  think  first  to  take 
counsel  together  in  Nashville. ' ' 28 

Although  Judge  Sharkey  accepted  the  compromise  measures 
and  refused  to  issue  the  call  for  the  reassembling  of  the  Southern 
Convention,  delegates  from  seven  states  met  in  Nashville,  Nov. 
11,  1850.  Most  of  the  moderate  men  refused  to  attend  and  the 
convention  was  in  complete  control  of  the  radicals.  Cheves  for 
the  South  Carolina  delegation  submitted  a  resolution,  "That  a 
secession,  by  the  joint  action  of  the  slaveholding  states,  is  the 
only  efficient  remedy  for  the  aggravated  wrongs  which  they  now 
endure,  and  the  enormous  events  which  threaten  them  in  the 
future,  from  the  usurped  and  now  unrestricted  power  of  the 
Federal  Government."  In  a  fiery  speech  of  three  hours  in 
length,  he  elaborated  the  idea  of  this  resolution;  he  denounced 
and  ridiculed  "the  glorious  Union;"  he  pleaded  for  a  union  of 
the  South  and  the  establishment  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  The 
Convention  adopted  resolutions  affirming  the  right  of  secession, 
denouncing  the  compromise  measures,  and,  as  Barnwell  and  Sea- 
brook  had  desired,  recommending  a  congress  or  convention  of  the 
slaveholding  states  "intrusted  with  full  power  and  authority  to 
deliberate  and  act  with  a  view  and  intention  of  arresting  further 
aggression,  and  if  possible,  of  restoring  the  Constitutional  rights 
of  the  South;  and  if  not,  to  provide  for  their  future  safety  and 


11 B.  W.  Barnwell  to  Gov.  John  A.  Quitman,  Sept.  19,  1850,  Claiborue 
M8S. 


72  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

independence."     The  convention  attracted  little  attention  and 
adjourned  sine  die  November  18,  1850. 29 

In  the  meantime,  while  Seabrook  and  Barnwell  were  work- 
ing hopefully  for  the  cooperative  resistance  of  at  least  four  or 
five  Southern  states,  the  tide  of  disunion  ran  strongly  in  South 
Carolina.  Even  before  the  passage  of  the  last  of  the  compromise 
measures  the  organization  of  the  state  into  Southern  Rights  As- 
sociations was  begun.  Late  in  August  the  citizens  of  Richland 
district  met  in  Columbia,  took  steps  under  the  direction  of  W.  C. 
Preston,  former  Nullifier,  Whig  senator,  and  then  president  of 
South  Carolina  College,  towards  the  formation  of  a  Southern 
Rights  Association,  and  sent  out  a  circular  to  the  citizens  of  each 
district  of  the  state  recommending  that  they  take  similar  ac- 
tion. 80  During  September,  October,  and  November  the  organ- 
ization of  these  associations  proceeded  in  all  sections  of  the  state. 
The  Southern  Rights  Association  of  St.  Philip's  and  St.  Mich- 
ael's (Charleston)  is  typical.  Its  constitution  declared  the  ob- 
ject of  the  association  to  be  "to  organize  more  effectively  the 
people  of  these  Parishes  in  the  support  of  the  interests  of  the 
South;  to  promote  concert  of  action  among  citizens  of  this  and 
other  Southern  states  in  vindication  of  their  rights ;  and  to  sus- 
tain the  State  authorities  in  whatever  measures  South  Carolina 
may  adopt  for  her  defense  or  that  of  her  sister  States. ' '  It  pro- 
vided for  an  organziation  with  a  president,  vice-president,  a  com- 
mittee of  finance,  a  committee  of  correspondence,  and  a  commit- 
tee of  safety  to  consider  all  communications,  call  extra  meetings 
and  make  reports  to  meetings  as  they  saw  fit.  It  declared  that 

"D.  T.  Herndon,  "The  Nashville  Convention  of  1850,"  in  Transac- 
tions of  Ala.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  227-233;  "Speech  of  the  Hon.  Langdon  Cheves, 
in  the  Nashville  Convention,  November  15,  1850;"  "Resolutions  and  Ad- 
dress adopted  by  the  Southern  Convention ; "  Mercury,  Nov.  19,  22, 

1850. 

^Tri-Weekly  South  Carolinian,  Aug.  27,  Sept.  5,  7,  1850;  Winyah  Ob- 
server, Sept.  25,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  73 

the  association  should  continue  in  existence  and  persevere  in  its 
efforts  until  the  wrongs  of  the  South  should  be  redressed  or 
South  Carolina  resume  the  powers  she  had  delegated  to  the 
United  States. 31 

The  members  of  the  Winy  ah  and  All  Saints  (Georgetown) 
Southern  Rights  Association  pledged  themselves  not  to  employ 
any  vessel  owned  or  commanded  by  persons  not  citizens  of  a 
slave  state. 32  The  planters  in  other  parishes  where  coasting  ves- 
sels were  used  to  carry  rice  and  cotton  to  market,  in  St.  Helena 's, 
St.  Bartholomew's,  St.  Luke's,  Prince  William's,  signed  similar 
pledges. 33  The  Southern  Rights  Association  of  Beaufort  urged 
entire  non-intercourse  with  the  non-slaveholding  states  and 
pledged  its  members  to  this  program,  as  far  as  circumstances 
permitted,  and  to  all  measures  calculated  to  attain  the  formation 
of  a  Southern  confederacy,  and,  failing  in  that,  to  "support  the 
State  authorities  in  separate  resistance  to  federal  aggression. ' ' 34 
The  Colleton  Rifle  Corps  volunteered  its  services  to  the  state  in 
case  of  need,  and  received  from  Governor  Seabrook  this  reply : 
"The  people  of  the  South  occupy  a  perilous  position.  How  they 
may  be  rescued  from  it  is  perhaps  a  question  which  the  citizen 
soldier  will  have  to  answer. ' ' 3S 

In  the  multitude  of  speeches  and  resolutions  and  letters 
printed  in  the  newspapers  of  the  state  the  line  of  cleavage  be- 
tween those  who  wanted  united  action  by  the  South  and  those 
who  wanted  independent  action  by  South  Carolina  began  again 
to  show  itself.  Rhett  continued  his  fiery  speeches,  willing  ' '  from 
courtesy"  to  wait  upon  the  action  of  other  Southern  states,  but 
ready  to  urge  that  South  Carolina  alone  and  single-handed  take 


"  Mercury,  Oct.  4,  1850. 

*  Winyah  Observer,  Nov.  16,  1850. 

"  Mercury,  Sept.  28,  Oct.  15,  26,  28,  1850. 

"Ibid.,  Nov.  15,  1850. 

"  Ibid.,  Nov.  9,  16,  1850. 


74  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

up  arms  if  the  other  states  should  submit. 36  In  Georgetown 
R.  F.  W.  Alston  secured  the  passage  of  a  resolution  instructing 
the  members  of  the  legislature  from  that  district  to  vote  for  sep- 
arate state  action. 37  The  Beaufort  pledge  looked  to  the  same 
remedy.  In  the  up-country,  Representative  James  L.  Orr  urged 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  the  establishment  of  a  Southern 
confederacy. 38  At  Pendleton  and  at  Greenville,  both  in  the 
north-western  part  of  the  state,  C.  G.  Memminger  of  Charleston 
drew  a  picture  for  the  non-slaveholders  of  that  section  of  the 
desolation  and  the  war  between  the  races  that  would  follow  abo- 
lition. He  urged  a  Southern  confederacy,  and  in  the  event  of 
submission  by  the  other  Southern  states,  the  secession  from  the 
Union  of  South  Carolina  alone. 39 

Yet  there  were  some  South  Carolinians  who  from  varying 
motives  raised  their  voices  in  protest  against  the  headlong  course 
their  state  was  thus  called  upon  to  take.  For  the  first  time  since 
the  introduction  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  such  prominent  Union- 
ists as  Poinsett  and  W.  J.  Grayson  and  even  Perry  publicly 
avowed  their  devotion  to  the  Union  and  their  belief  that  its  de- 
struction was  neither  necessary  nor  desirable.  In  Greenville, 
General  Waddy  Thompson  attacked  the  measures  advocated  by 
Memminger  and  declared  that  the  South  was  not  so  unjustly 
treated  by  the  North  as  many  contended. 40  Perry  issued  the 
prospectus  of  a  new  paper,  the  Greenville  Southern  Patriot,  the 
policy  of  which  should  be  to  oppose  the  popular  current  sweep- 
ing over  the  state  in  favor  of  separate  state  action  and  immediate 
disunion,  and  to  advocate  the  union  of  the  South  in  a  Southern 
congress  for  the  defense  of  the  rights  of  the  South  and  the  pres- 

"  Speech  at  Black  Oak,  Nov.  2,  Mercury,  Nov.  8,  1850. 

17  Winyah  Observer,  Nov.  16,  1850. 

"Mercury,  Nov.  14,  1850. 

"Mercury,  Oct.    10,  Nov.  9,   1850;   Pamphlet:    "Speech   delivered  by 

Col.  C.  G.  Memminger in  Pendleton." 

40  Mercury,  Nov.  9,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  75 

ervation  of  the  integrity  of  the  Union. 41  Both  Perry  and 
Thompson  by  their  speeches  in  1847  in  opposition  to  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  had  helped  raise  the  storm  which  now  threatened  to  de- 
stroy the  Union  or  to  bring  ruin  upon  South  Carolina.  Poinsett 
and  Grayson  had  a  more  consistent  record  behind  them.  Both 
now  publicly  expressed  their  opposition  to  any  attempt  at  dis- 
union. Both  bravely  justified  the  compromise  measures,  de- 
clared the  formation  of  a  Southern  Confederacy  undesirable  as 
well  as  impracticable,  and  judged  the  secession  of  South  Caro- 
lina alone  from  the  Union  nothing  but  the  wildest  folly. 42 

Ex-Governor  James  Hamilton  had  a  somewhat  different 
point  of  view  but  he  reached  a  conclusion  similar  to  that  of 
Poinsett  and  Grayson.  In  a  rather  remarkable  letter  addressed 
"to  the  People  of  South  Carolina"  he  confessed  that  he  had  "no 
superstitious  veneration  for  the  Union,"  but  he  strongly  depre- 
cated separate  action  by  the  state,  and  declared  that  the  people 
of  no  other  state  considered  the  compromise  measures  sufficient 
cause  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Those  measures  Hamilton 
himself  considered  unjust  but  not  unconstitutional,  and  he 
urged  that  South  Carolina  accept  them  as  a  final  settlement. 
Should  they  not  prove  such,  he  said,  and  should  the  free-soilers 
and  abolitionists  elect  a  president,  repeal  the  fugitive-slave  law, 
and  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  then  the  whole 
South  could  unite  in  dissolving  the  Union. 43 

Even  so  sincere  a  disunionist  as  James  H.  Hammond  was 
opposed  to  calling  a  convention,  opposed  to  passing  any  hector- 
ing resolutions,  opposed  to  any  open  breaking  ground  against 


41  Courier,  Nov.  15,  1850;  Spartan,  Nov.  21,  1850. 

a  Letter  from  Hon.  J.  E.  Poinsett  to  ' '  Fellow  Citizens, ' '  Dec.  4,  1850, 
in  Mercury,  Dec.  5,  1850;  W.  J.  Grayson,  "Letter  to  His  Excellency,  White- 
marsh  B.  Seabrook,  Governor  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  on  the  Disso- 
lution of  the  Union." 

a  Letter  dated  Nov.  11,  1850,  printed  in  Mercury,  Nov.  28,  1850. 


76  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

the  federal  government,  opposed  to  any  attempt  at  secession  by 
South  Carolina,  though  he  thought  that  ultimately  the  state 
would  have  to  take  the  lead  in  seceding.  "In  a  few  years,"  he 
said,  "no  one  can  say  when  or  how  soon,  the  voice  of  the  South 
will  call  us  to  the  lead."  As  to  his  opinion  of  the  compromise, 
he  wrote  thus :  "  I  think  the  late  acts  of  Congress  constitute  good 
grounds  for  secession,  and  I  think  that  the  Legislature  might  so 
resolve  and  proffer  cooperation  with  any  other  seceding  State — 
but  without  bluster.  The  error  of  Hamilton  and  his  set  is  that 
they  look  to  mere  facts,  not  to  the  motives  of  men  and  the  tend- 
encies and  objects  of  measures.  There  was  no  actual  oppression 
in  the  Stamp  Act  or  Tea  Tax."  44 

In  October  elections  for  members  of  the  South  Carolina  leg- 
islature were  held.  Though  some  candidates  were  requested  to 
state  their  views  on  the  questions  of  calling  a  state  convention,  of 
cooperating  with  Georgia  or  any  other  state  that  should  take 
redress  into  its  own  hands,  and,  should  no  state  take  this  stand, 
of  submission  or  independent  action  by  South  Carolina,  45  no 
very  clear  line  was  drawn  in  the  campaign  on  the  question  of  the 
action  by  the  state  in  a  contingency  not  yet  realized.  In  Charles- 
ton, the  highest  vote  received  by  any  candidate  was  given  to 
John  E.  Carew,  senior  editor  of  the  Mercury,  who  defeated  his 
opponent  for  the  state  senate  by  a  vote  of  1961  to  782.  46 

The  newly  elected  legislature  met  late  in  November.  Gov- 
ernor Seabrook's  message  dealt  directly  or  indirectly  almost  ex- 
clusively with  federal  relations.  In  view  of  the  critical  condi- 
tion of  those  relations  he  desired  investigations  into  the  best 
mode  of  improving  the  natural  gifts  of  the  state,  with  especial 
attention  to  manufacturing.  The  imminent  peril  of  the  institu- 

44  Hammond  to  W.  H.  Gist,  Dec.  2  and  P.  S.  dated  Dec.  3,  1850,  Ham- 
mond MSS. 

"Mercury,  Oct.  11,  1850. 
48  Ibid.,  Oct.  17,  1850. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  77 

tion  of  slavery  caused  him  to  advocate  measures  to  check  emi- 
gration, increase  the  value  of  slave  property  and  encourage  all 
classes  to  possess  it.  He  recommended  the  purchase  of  field 
pieces,  the  establishment  within  the  state  of  factories  for  the 
production  of  arms  and  munitions,  and  a  large  increase  in  the 
fund  for  military  as  well  as  civil  contingencies  subject  to  the 
draft  of  the  governor.  He  proposed  that  South  Carolina  receive 
her  share  of  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  public  lands  as  pro- 
vided for  by  Act  of  Congress  in  1841  and  hitherto  declined  for 
constitutional  reasons.  The  governor  dwelt  at  considerable 
length  on  the  differences  between  North  and  South,  and  the  evi- 
dence for  his  conclusion  that  the  South  could  no  longer  hope  for 
security  of  life,  or  liberty,  or  property  within  the  Union.  He 
concluded :  ' '  The  time,  then,  has  come  to  resume  the  exercise  of 
the  powers  of  self  protection,  which  in  the  hour  of  unsuspecting 
confidence,  we  surrendered  to  foreign  hands While  adher- 
ing faithfully  to  the  remedy  of  joint  State  action  for  redress  of 
common  grievances,  I  beseech  you  to  remember,  that  no  conjunc- 
ture of  events  ought  to  induce  us  to  abandon  the  right  of  decid- 
ing ultimately  on  our  own  destiny."  47 

By  legislative  resolution,  Friday,  December  6,  was  desig- 
nated as  a  day  of  fasting  and  humiliation,  on  which  the  clergy 
of  South  Carolina  should  call  together  their  congregations  to  ask 
divine  guidance  for  the  General  Assembly  in  devising  measures 
conducive  to  the  best  interests  and  welfare  of  the  state. 48  On 
that  day  the  Reverend  Whitefoord  Smith  conducted  religious 
services  and  delivered  a  sermon  -before  the  members  of  the  As- 
sembly. The  sermon  was  largely  a  defense  of  the  institution 
of  slavery,  and  concluded  with  the  advice  that  it  should  be  left 
in  the  hands  of  God  whether  He  should  be  pleased  that  the 


"  S.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1850,  14-30. 
« Ibid.,  32-33. 


78  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Union  be  continued  with  the  wrongs  of  the  South  redressed,  or 
that  the  bonds  be  severed  and  new  combinations  formed.  *8 
Other  sermons  delivered  on  this  day  were  in  content  and  in  spirit 
similar  to  many  of  the  speeches  of  the  time,  and  were  calculated 
to  fan  into  a  fiercer  flame  the  spirit  of  sectional  hatred. 50 

The  South  Carolina  legislature  contained  at  most  only  four 
or  five  men  opposed  to  disunion.  Such  was  the  estimate  of  B.  F. 
Perry,  the  leader  of  this  handful. 51  Governor  Seabrook  re- 
ported that  there  was  only  one  man  in  the  legislature  in  favor  of 
ultimate  submission. 52  Petigru,  who  happened  to  be  in  Colum- 
bia when  the  lower  house  was  debating  the  question  of  resist- 
ance, wrote  thus  of  the  situation :  "  I  am  here  in  the  very  focus 
of  sedition.  Disunion  is  the  prevailing  idea,  indeed  it  is  a  pre- 
dominant sentiment. ' ' 53 

But  on  the  question  of  the  immediate  action  that  South 
Cacolina  should  take  there  was  a  serious  division  in  the  ranks  of 
the  disunionists.  One  party,  the  separate-state-actionists,  was 
in  favor  of  the  immediate  calling  of  a  convention  to  take  South 
Carolina  out  of  the  Union  in  the  company  of  others  if  possible, 
but  alone  if  necessary.  The  other  party  advocated  a  more  cau- 
tious course.  While  the  members  of  this  party  never  failed  to 
declare  their  desire  that  South  Carolina  ultimately  secede  alone 


*  Pamphlet:  "God,  the  Refuge  of  His  People.  A  Sermon,  delivered 
before  the  General  Assembly  of  South  Carolina,  on  Friday,  December  6, 
1850,  being  a  day  of  Fasting,  Humiliation  and  Prayer.  By  Whitefoord 
Smith,  D.  D. " 

"  See  pamphlets :  ' '  Views  upon  the  present  crisis.  A  discourse,  deliv- 
ered in  St.  Peter 's  Church,  Charleston,  on  the  6th  of  December,  1850 

By  Wm.  H.  Barnwell,  rector  of  said  church,"  and  "Our  Danger  and 
Duty.  A  discourse  delivered  Dec.  6,  1850,  by  the  Rev.  A.  A.  Porter, 
Pastor. ' ' 

51  J.  L.  Petigru  to  his  sister,  Dec.  19,  1850,  in  J.  B.  Allston,  ' '  Life  and 
Times  of  James  L.  Petigru,"  Chas.  Sunday  News,  Mar.  11,  1900. 

BJ  Seabrook  to  Quitman,  Dec.  17,  1850,  Claiborne  MSS. 

"Petigru  to  Daniel  Webster,  Dec.  6,  1850,  Webster  MSS. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  79 

if  necessary,  rather  than  submit,  they  worked  for  the  calling  of  a 
Southern  congress  as  proposed  by  the  second  session  of  the  Nash- 
ville Convention  and  opposed  the  immediate  calling  of  a  state 
convention.  Perry  explained  that  both  parties  were  equally  de- 
termined on  a  dissolution  of  the  Union;  that  one  hoped  to 
achieve  this  by  means  of  a  Southern  Congress  and  the  formation 
of  a  Southern  confederacy ;  that  the  other,  believing  no  Southern 
state  would  unite  with  South  Carolina,  desired  to  call  a  conven- 
tion, secede  at  once  and  thus  force  an  issue  with  the  federal  gov- 
ernment which  would  unite  the  South,  or  failing  in  this,  leave 
South  Carolina  an  independent  commonwealth. 5* 

While  the  South  Carolina  legislature  was  in  session  the  Mis- 
sissippi legislature  provided  for  a  state  convention,  the  elections 
to  take  place  the  succeeding  October.  Quitman  immediately  tel- 
egraphed and  then  wrote  Seabrook.  His  assurance  that  South 
Carolina  could  confidently  rely  on  the  cooperation  of  Mississippi, 
and  the  speeches  of  prominent  men  in  the  legislature  had  some  in- 
fluence, said  Seabrook,  in  "checking  the  course  of  the  impetuous 
and  unreflecting. "  55  If  encouraging  news  for  the  more  con- 
servative disunionists  came  from  Mississippi,  that  from  Georgia 
tended  to  confirm  the  opinion  of  those  who  believed  that  delay 
would  not  bring  cooperation.  The  Georgia  Convention,  in  ses- 
sion December  10-14,  though  threatening  resistance,  even  to  the 
extent  of  a  disruption  of  the  Union,  to  certain  legislation  against 
slavery  that  might  in  the  future  be  attempted,  acquiesced  in  the 
recently  adopted  compromise  measures  as  a  permanent  settle- 
ment of  the  sectional  controversy. 56 

"Pamphlet  dated  Jan.  15,  1851:  "Circular  of  Messrs.  Perry,  Duncan 
and  Brockman,  to  the  People  of  Greenville  District. ' ' 

"Quitman  to  R.  B.  Ehett,  Nov.  30,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS;  Seabrook  to 
Quitman,  (telegram)  Dec.  3,  1850,  Dec.  17,  19,  1850,  Claiborne  MSS.  The 
letter,  dated  Dec.  17  and  19,  is  printed  in  part  in  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quit- 
man, II,  39-40. 

**  Journal  of  the  Georgia  Convention,  1850. 


80  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

In  the  lower  house  of  the  South  Carolina  General  Assembly, 
consideration  of  the  action  that  should  be  taken  by  the  state 
consumed  a  large  part  of  the  session.  Of  a  large  number  of  bills 
and  resolutions  on  this  question,  a  number  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Federal  Relations.  The  others  were  considered  in 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  December  3  to  16.  The  de- 
bates, participated  in  by  a  large  number  of  members,  brought  out 
clearly  the  division  between  state  actionists  and  cooperation- 
ists. B7  The  result  was  a  report  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
recommending  the  passage  of  a  'bill  for  a  state  convention.  In 
the  meantime  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations  had  reported 
a  bill  providing  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  Southern  con- 
gress, and  the  Senate  in  one  day  of  discussion  had  passed  by  a 
vote  of  37  to  6  a  bill  for  a  state  convention.  The  House  imme- 
diately killed  the  bill  for  a  Southern  congress  by  postponing  con- 
sideration of  it  until  January  1.  The  next  day,  December  17, 
the  Senate  bill  for  a  state  convention  to  meet  in  December,  1851, 
failed  to  pass  the  House  by  a  vote  of  75  yea  and  42  nay,  the 
necessary  affirmative  vote  of  two-thirds  of  all  members  being 
lacking.  Thus  both  propositions  were  lost.  The  House  bill  for  a 
convention  was  then  tabled,  the  vote  postponing  the  Southern 
congress  bill  reconsidered,  the  state  convention  bill  added  to  it  as 
an  amendment,  and  the  two  measures  together  lost  by  a  vote  of 
80  yea  to  32  nay,  two-thirds  not  in  the  affirmative.  Next  a  bill 
for  a  Southern  congress,  proposed  by  Memminger,  was  taken  up 
and  amended  by  adding  to  it  the  proposal  for  a  state  convention. 
This  left  the  House  just  where  it  had  been  before,  so  it  ad- 
journed in  confusion  soon  after  midnight. 5S 

The  minority  opposed  to  a  state  convention  had  defeated 

"  These  debates  are  given  in  abstract  in  Courier,  Dec.  5-18,  and  Tri- 
voeekly  South  Carolinian,  Dec.  13,  16,  18,  20,  1850. 

68  8.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1850,  131-132;  House  Journal,  1850,  131,  167, 
182,  192,  196,  197,  207. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  81 

that  measure  both  alone  and  when  added  to  the  Southern  con- 
gress bill.  The  majority  had  refused  to  pass  the  Southern  con- 
gress bill  without  the  convention  bill  attached.  Only  three  days 
of  the  session  were  left  and  unless  some  agreement  could  be 
reached  the  legislature  would  adjourn  without  taking  any  step 
towards  disunion.  A  compromise  was  made.  On  December  18,  a 
bill  providing  for  the  call  of  and  election  of  delegates  to  a  South- 
ern congress  and  for  a  state  convention  passed  the  House  by  a 
vote  of  109  to  12,  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  session  was  accepted 
by  the  Senate  with  only  three  dissenting  votes. 59 

The  ''Omnibus  Bill,"  as  it  was  called,  authorized  the  gov- 
ernor, in  concert  with  the  proper  authorities  of  other  states  join- 
ing in  the  congress,  to  appoint  the  time  and  place  of  meeting  of 
this  body.  The  purpose  of  the  congress  should  be  to  devise 
measures  adequate  to  obtain  the  objects  proposed  by  the  Nash- 
ville Convention,  and  to  report  the  same  to  the  slaveholding 
states.  The  act  provided  for  eighteen  deputies  from  South  Caro- 
lina with  full  power  to  represent  the  state,  four  to  be  chosen  by 
the  legislature  and  two  from  each  Congressional  district  by  the 
qualified  voters,  the  elections  to  be  held  the  second  Monday  and 
the  day  following  in  October,  1851.  It  provided,  further,  for  the 
election  of  delegates,  the  second  Monday  in  February,  1851,  to  a 
convention  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  recommendations  of  the  proposed  Southern  con- 
gress and  to  take  care  that  the  Commonwealth  of  South  Carolina 
suffer  no  detriment  in  view  of  her  relations  with  the  laws  and 
government  of  the  United  States.  It  suggested  Montgomery, 
Alabama,  as  the  place,  and  Jan.  2, 1852,  as  the  date  for  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Southern  congress.  It  left  the  date  for  the  meeting  of 
the  state  convention  to  be  determined  by  the  governor,  should 
the  Southern  congress  be  assured  before  the  next  session  of  the 

WS.  C.  House  Journal,  1850,  216;  Senate  Journal,  1850,  171. 


82  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

legislature,  and  if  not,  then  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  legislature 
itself. 60  In  honor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  guns  were  fired  in 
Columbia  and  Charleston. 61 

The  legislature  showed  the  temper  of  its  majority  when  it 
elected  Ehett  to  Calhoun's  seat  in  the  Senate.  For  Governor,  it 
chose  John  H.  Means  of  Fairfield  District.  Means  was  not  a 
prominent  South  Carolina  leader,  but  he  had  taken  a  leading 
part  in  the  resistance  movement  in  his  district,  and  had  been 
chairman  of  the  Fairfield  committee  which  in  1848  issued  an  ad- 
dress to  the  South  advocating  the  establishment  of  a  Southern 
confederacy.  In  his  inaugural  address  he  strongly  favored  dis- 
union, but  urged  that  South  Carolina  await  the  results  of  the 
measures  suggested  by  the  Nashville  Convention,  and  only  when 
all  efforts  to  unite  the  South  had  failed  "throw  her  banner  to 
the  breeze  and  leave  the  consequences  to  God. ' ' 62 

Several  measures  preparatory  to  disunion  were  adopted  by 
the  legislature.  It  chartered  the  South  Carolina  Atlantic  Steam 
Navigation  Company  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  communica- 
tion between  the  ports  of  South  Carolina  and  foreign  countries. 
To  this  company  it  authorized  a  five  year  loan  by  the  state  of 
$125,000  without  interest,  on  the  conditions  that  the  vessels  of 
the  company  be  constructed  so  as  to  "make  them  available  in  an 
emergency  for  war  purposes,"  and  that  at  least  two  of  them  be 
completed  within  twelve  months. 63  It  passed  ' '  An  Act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  defense  of  the  State,"  reestablishing  militia  brigade 
encampments,  and  providing  for  the  organization  of  a  Board  of 
Ordnance  the  duties  of  which  should  be  to  care  for  the  arms,  am- 
munition, etc.,  belonging  to  the  state,  direct  the  purchase  of  mu- 
nitions of  war,  and  secure  from  a  competent  military  engineer  an 


80  S.  C.  Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  50-53. 

"Mercury,  Dec.  20,  21,  1850. 

42  Ibid.,  Dec.  18,  1850. 

M  S.  C.  Session  Laws,  1850,  29-33. 


THE  COMPROMISE  REJECTED  83 

examination  of  and  report  on  the  defense  of  the  coast  of  the 
state. 6*  In  addition  to  some  small  increases  in  the  usual  appro- 
priations for  military  purposes,  the  legislature  placed  $300,000  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Board  of  Ordnance,  and  added  $50,000  to  the 
military  contingency  fund  to  be  used  by  the  governor  only  in  the 
emergency  of  actual  hostility. 65  To  provide  the  money  for  these 
unusual  expenses,  the  legislature  directed  the  governor  to  secure 
from  the  federal  government  South  Carolina's  share  of  the  pro- 
ceeds from  the  sale  of  public  lands, 66  and  it  proceeded  to  in- 
crease taxes  by  about  fifty  per  cent. 67 

M  8.  C.  Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  52-53. 

"Ibid.,  7;  Reports  and  Resolutions,  1850,  230. 

"Ibid.,  223. 

"S.  C.  Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  540,  XII,  3. 


CHAPTER  V 
SECESSION  ADVOCATED 

The  weeks  following  the  adjournment  of  the  South  Carolina 
legislature  in  December,  1850,  and  preceding  the  election  of  del- 
egates to  the  state  convention  which  took  place  February  10  and 
11,  1851,  were  weeks  of  comparative  quiet.  The  small  amount  of 
discussion  that  took  place  served  only  to  indicate  somewhat  more 
clearly  the  division  of  opinion  in  the  ranks  of  the  disunionists. 
No  open  breach  was  made,  however.  The  compromise  forced  by 
the  minority  in  the  legislature  was  accepted  by  the  state-action- 
ists,  but  they  did  not  give  up  their  insistence  upon  ultimate  se- 
cession. The  Barnwell  Southern  Rights  Association  expressed 
approval  of  the  action  of  the  legislature  but  insisted  upon  seces- 
sion by  South  Carolina  alone  should  the  Southern  congress  fail 
to  meet  or  fail  to  act. 1  A  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Fairfield 
agreed  that  the  state  convention  should  act  effectively  before  its 
final  adjournment  by  cooperation  if  possible,  but  independently 
if  necessary.  This,  said  the  Mercury,  was  the  platform  on  which 
all  resistance  men  ought  to  stand. 2  On  the  other  hand,  Bishop 
William  Capers  addressed  his  "Fellow  Citizens  of  South  Caro- 
lina" in  opposition  to  the  measures  on  foot  looking  solely  to  se- 
cession by  South  Carolina  alone.  He  urged  the  election  to  the 
convention  of  wise  and  sober  minded  men.  3  Petigru  replied  to 
this  that  Union  men  should  not  vote  at  all,  but  leave  to  those  who 
thought  the  work  of  revolution  a  good  work  the  settlement  among 
themselves  of  how,  when,  and  where  they  would  begin.  * 

1  Mercury,  Jan.  10,  1851. 

'Ibid.,  Jan.  31,   1851. 

1  Ibid.,  Feb.  7,  1851. 

'Charleston  Evening  News,  Feb.  8,  1851. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  85 

The  campaign  for  seats  in  the  state  convention  was  almost 
wholly  devoid  of  interest.  In  some  districts  candidates  were 
questioned  as  to  their  position  on  secession,  and  in  most  cases 
they  pledged  themselves  to  vote  for  separate  state  action  in  the 
event  of  the  failure  of  the  Southern  congress. 5  In  many  dis- 
tricts there  was  little  difference  of  opinion  between  the  candi- 
dates. In  Greenville  and  in  a  few  other  districts,  the  line  was 
clearly  drawn  between  submissionists  and  disunionists  or  be- 
tween separate  state  actionists  and  cooperationists,  the  latter 
standing  for  disunion  but  opposing  state  secession.  In  Charles- 
ton no  line  was  drawn  and  popular  confidence  was  more  the  de- 
termining factor  than  definite  advocacy  of  any  specific  line  of 
action  for  the  convention.  Several  tickets  were  put  forward  con- 
taining considerable  duplication  of  names,  but  little  interest  in 
the  election  was  shown.  The  ' '  ultra  secessionists ' '  were  reported 
to  be  in  a  very  small  minority. 6  In  most  sections  of  the  state  the 
very  small  vote  cast  indicated  either  a  general  lack  of  interest  or 
the  absence  of  any  contest.  In  Charleston  only  873  votes  were 
cast  where  in  the  preceding  October,  in  a  not  especially  hotly 
contested  election  for  state  legislators,  there  had  been  a  total  of 
2743. 7  From  other  sections  of  the  state  reports  indicated  a  very 
light  vote,  a  situation  explained  by  ardent  secessionists  on  the 
ground  that  the  people  were  all  of  the  same  way  of  thinking  and 
all  candidates  of  the  right  stamp. 8  Perry,  however,  declaring 
that  not  one-third  of  the  people  had  voted,  saw  in  this  extraordi- 
nary apathy  of  the  voters  the  commencement  of  reaction. 9  Ham- 
mond thought  that  the  convention  had  fallen  dead,  and  rejoiced 


8  Mercury,  Feb.  6;  Winyah  Observer,  Jan.  29,  Feb.  1,  4;   Tri-Weekly 
South  Carolinian,  Jan.  20,  1851. 

"John  Russel  to  Hammond,  Feb.  10,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 

'  Mercury,  Oct.  17,  1850,  Feb.  12,  1851. 

1  Tri-WeeUy  South  Carolinian,  Feb.  14,  1851. 

•Southern  Patriot   (Greenville),  Feb.  28,  1851. 


86  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

at  the  'blow  the  slight  vote  would  give  to  Rhett  's  game  to  commit 
the  state  as  early  and  as  deeply  as  possible  before  a  cooling  down 
should  take  place. 10  Francis  Lieber,  then  professor  in  South 
Carolina  College,  wrote  thus  of  the  situation : 

"Yesterday  the  election  for  the  convention  closed  and,  so 
far  as  heard  from,  the  people  have  shown  the  greatest  apathy. 
In  Richland  district — the  district  I  live  in — we  polled  1400  votes 
at  a  late  election  for  the  Legislature,  at  this  election  where  the 
question  is  secession  or  not,  only  about  800 !  My  friend  Mr.  Pet- 
igru,  sees  in  it  a  symptom  of  returning  sense.  I  wish  I  could  do 
the  same.  To  me  this  apathy  has  been  fearful.  To  be  passive 
when  boys  fire  crackers  near  a  powder  magazine  shows  an  amaz- 
ing callousness,  which  in  politics  means  that  the  game  may  be 
taken  in  hand  by  a  few  trading  politicians  and  a  number  of 
reckless  editors.  But  one  thing  I  must  state  in  the  spirit  of 
truth,  that  I  find  now  tens  and  even  hundreds  who  frankly  say 
that  separate  state  secession  would  be  folly  for  one  a  few  months 
ago.  Almost  everyone  is  for  Southern  secession,  but  we  must  be 
thankful  for  small  favors. ' '  " 

Whatever  the  cause  for  the  small  vote,  the  result  was  to  give 
the  control  of  the  convention  into  the  hands  of  those  favorable  to 
ultimate  separate  secession  by  South  Carolina.  The  South  Caro- 
linian declared  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  a  fixed  fact,  the 
time,  only,  left  for  future  consideration,  and  claimed  that  nine- 
tenths  of  the  delegates  were  convinced  that  redress  for  the  past 
and  security  for  the  future  were  "only  to  be  found  in  seces- 
sion." 12  Of  the  one  hundred  and  sixty -nine  delegates  the  Mer- 
cury claimed  that  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  were  for  the 
secession  of  South  Carolina  alone  from  the  Union,  and  that  of  the 
minority  opposed  to  speedy  action,  less  than  ten  were  submis- 

10  Hammond  to  Simms,  Feb.  14,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 

M  Francis  Lieber  to  Daniel  Webster,  Feb.  13,  1851,  Webster  MSS. 

"  Feb.  22,  1851. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  87 

sionists. 13  The  greatest  claim  made  by  the  other  side  was  that 
seventy-eight  delegates  were  opposed  to  secession. 14  One  dele- 
gate wrote  that  in  opposition  to  state  secession  he  stood  almost 
alone  among  those  elected  to  the  convention. 15 

Among  the  delegates  chosen  were  many  of  South  Carolina's 
leading  men.  The  Charleston  delegation  was  largely  a  conserva- 
time  one.  It  was  headed  by  Langdon  Cheves,  who  had  received 
the  largest  vote,  and  contained  such  men  as  Robert  W.  Barn- 
well,  Senator  A.  P.  Butler,  ex-Senator  D.  E.  Huger,  Judge  Ed- 
ward Frost,  Judge  Mitchell  King,  Chancellor  B.  F.  Dunkin, 
C.  G.  Memminger,  and  I.  W.  Hayne.  From  other  districts  were 
chosen  Governor  Means,  F.  W.  Pickens,  Maxcy  Gregg,  and  for- 
mer governors  J.  P.  Richardson  and  W.  B.  Seabrook.  In  Green- 
ville B.  F.  Perry  headed  the  only  Union  delegation  elected  to  the 
convention. 

In  the  other  Southern  states  little  encouragement  could  be 
found  for  those  who  hoped  for  cooperative  disunion  or  cooper- 
ative action  of  any  kind.  The  call  for  a  Southern  congress  met 
with  little  favor.  In  Alabama  the  legislature  adopted  resolu- 
tions accepting  the  compromise  measures  as  a  final  settlement  of 
the  slavery  question. 16  The  Virginia  legislature  took  the  same 
position,  and  appealed  to  South  Carolnia  to  desist  from  any  med- 
itated secession. 17  To  Mississippi,  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
therefore  looked  with  anxiety.  The  situation  was  thus  explained 
to  Quitman : 

"In  a  word,  then,  nearly  every  man  in  South  Carolina  be- 
lieves that  the  equal  political  condition  of  the  slave  holding  states 
is  incompatible  with  the  existence  of  the  present  Confederation 


"Feb.  19,  1851. 

14  Southern  Patriot,  May  9,  1851. 

MA.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  20,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 

"Law;*  of  Alabama,  1850-1851,  535. 

"Laws  of  Virginia,  1850-1851,  201. 


88  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

— that  the  present  Union  and  the  institution  of  slavery  cannot 
coexist  and  that  so  fixed,  determined  and  progressive  is  the  pol- 
icy, destructive  to  slavery,  which  controls  the  General  Govern- 
ment, it  is  safer  and  wiser  to  dissolve  all  connection  with  that 

Government  at  once Will  South  Carolina  be  sustained  by 

the  sympathies  of  the  people  or  the  cooperation  of  any  of  the 
other  slave-holding  states?  If  there  is  a  prospect  or  chance  of 
this,  many  of  her  public  men  will  counsel  delay  and  efforts  to  at- 
tain aid  so  desirable  for  success.  If,  however,  there  be  no  such 
hope  well  founded,  then  we  will  go  as  one  man  for  secession  and 
leave  the  consequences  to  the  inevitable  workings  of  truth  and 
necessity  on  those  who  ought  to  be  with  us. ' ' 18 

In  reply,  Quitman  wrote  that  it  could  not  be  expected  that 
Mississippi  would  secede  unless  joined  by  her  neighboring  states 
and  that  there  was  little  prospect  of  even  the  cotton  states  tak- 
ing any  joint  action.  He  advised  his  South  Carolina  friends  as 
follows:  "If,  therefore,  the  people  of  South  Carolina  have  made 
up  their  minds  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  at  all  events, 
whether  joined  by  other  states  or  not,  my  advice  would  be  to  do 
so  without  waiting  for  the  action  of  any  other  state,  as  I  believe 
there  would  be  more  probability  of  favorable  action  on  the  part 
of  other  Southern  States  after  her  secession  than  before.  So  long 
as  the  several  aggrieved  states  wait  for  one  another,  their  action 
will  be  overcautious  and  timid.  Great  political  movements,  to  be 
successful  must  be  bold,  and  must  present  practical  and  simple 
issues.  There  is,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  greater  probability  of 
the  dissatisfied  states  uniting  with  a  seceding  state  than  of  their 
union  for  the  purpose  of  secession.  The  secession  of  a  Southern 
state  would  startle  the  whole  South,  and  force  the  other  states  to 
meet  the  issue  plainly ;  it  would  present  practical  issues,  and  ex- 
hibit everywhere  a  widerspread  discontent  than  politicians  have 

"John  S.  Preston  to  John  A.  Quitman,  Mar.  4,  1851,  Claiborne  MSS. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  89 

imagined.  In  less  than  two  years,  all  the  states  south  of  you 
would  unite  their  destiny  to  yours.  Should  the  federal  govern- 
ment attempt  to  employ  force,  an  active  and  cordial  union  of  the 
whole  South  would  be  instantly  effected,  and  a  complete  South- 
ern Confederacy  organized. ' ' 10 

Such  was  the  theory  on  which  the  secessionists  of  South 
Carolina  proposed  to  act.  The  Mercury  urged  that  a  Southern 
confederacy  could  only  be  formed  after  decisive  action  by  some* 
state  and  that  South  Carolina  was  the  only  state  which  could  act 
with  the  general  approval  of  its  people. 20  One  secessionist,  a 
member  of  the  South  Carolina  convention,  thought  that  the  con- 
veniton  should  pass  an  ordinance  of  secession  and  the  legislature 
put  this  ordinance  into  effect  by  annulling  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  courts  in  South  Carolina,  by  declaring  the  ports  of 
the  state  free  to  the  commerce  of  all  nations,  and  by  instructing 
the  governor  to  demand  the  withdrawal  of  all  United  States  of- 
ficials and  the  surrender  of  all  forts  within  the  state.  This  he 
thought  would  be  followed  by  the  removal  of  the  customs  houses 
to  ships  outside  the  ports  and  the  continued  execution  of  the  rev- 
enue laws.  In  Congress  he  expected  a  struggle  over  the  question 
of  coercion  which,  in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  a  force  bill, 
would  insure  the  aid  of  at  least  a  portion  of  the  slave  states  in 
opposition  to  its  enforcement.  In  the  last  resort,  he  said,  South 
Carolina  had  all  the  chances  of  war;  the  blockade  could  do  no 
more  than  effect  the  temporary  destruction  of  the  commerce  of 
Charleston,  and  he  was  willing  to  see  that  city  laid  in  ashes  if 
necessary  for  a  successful  defense  of  the  state. 21  Needless  to 
say,  the  writer  of  this  letter  was  not  a  Charlestonian. 


"Quitman  to  Preston,  Mar.  29,  1851,  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  II, 
123-127. 

"  Feb.  27,  1851. 

21  James  Jones  to  Hammond,  Apr.  5,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 


90  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Rhett  rejoiced  that  a  Southern  congress  would  not  meet,  for 
he  thought  that  such  a  'body  would  only  counsel  submission.  He 
declared  that  the  only  choice  left  for  South  Carolina  was  submis- 
sion or  secession,  and  secession  he  claimed  to  be  her  settled  pol- 
icy. He  spoke  before  the  Charleston  Southern  Rights  Associa- 
tion on  April  7,  1851,  and  pictured  for  the  citizens  of  that  city 
the  benefits  to  their  commercial  and  mercantile  interests  that 
would  result  from  secession  and  the  inauguration  of  a  free  trade 
policy  by  South  Carolina.  The  possibility  of  coercion  by  the 
federal  government  he  declared  to  be  absurd,  for  that  govern- 
ment knew  that  any  such  attempt  would  bring  the  whole  South 
to  the  rescue.  He  assured  his  audience  that  either  South  Caro- 
lina would  be  begged  to  return  to  the  Union  with  the  guarantee 
of  all  her  rights  or  she  would  be  left  peacefully  alone,  soon  to  be 
joined  by  the  other  Southern  states  attracted  by  her  prosperity 
and  free  government. 22 

Rhett 's  arguments,  however,  were  not  convincing,  as  the  let- 
ters to  the  newspapers  from  Charleston  merchants  counting  the 
cost  of  secession  clearly  demonstrated. 23  Other  outspoken  op- 
position to  separate  secession  was  soon  made.  In  Edgefield  Sen- 
ator Butler  addressed  the  Southern  Rights  Association  in  oppo- 
sition to  separate  secession  which  he  thought  would  be  peaceful 
and  hence  fail  to  bring  in  other  Southern  states. 2*  Represen- 
tative Orr  likewise  opposed  secession  and  urged  that  time  would 
bring  cooperation. 25  Even  Representative  Wallace,  who  argued 
at  great  length  that  a  Southern  confederacy  was  both  necessary, 
natural  and  inevitable  because  of  the  differences  between  North 
and  South  resulting  from  slavery,  favored  "delay  in  secession  un- 
til the  state  could  prepare  herself  to  defend  and  preserve  her  in- 


Mercury,  Apr.  29,  1851. 

See  letter  from  ' '  Utter  Ruin ' '  in  Courier,  May  5,  1851. 
Mercury,  Apr.  12 ;  South  Carolinian,  Apr.  12,  1851. 
Greenville  Mountaineer  quoted  in  Mercury,  Apr.  9,  1851. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  91 

dependence.  ' '  The  price  of  the  Union, ' '  he  wrote,  ' '  is  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  slave  and  a  surrender  of  the  fairest  portion  of  our 
country  to  the  emancipated  African. ' ' *6 

None  of  these  opponents  of  separate  secession,  however,  pro- 
fessed any  desire  to  "see  the  Union  preserved.  Rather  they  feared 
that  separate  secession  would  endanger,  if  not  definitely  pre- 
vent, the  formation  of  a  Southern  confederacy.  But  in  Green- 
ville, Perry  began  to  publish  the  Southern  Patriot  in  opposition 
to  both  secession  and  disunion.  Although  the  prospectus  had 
been  issued  the  preceding  fall,  the  first  issue  did  not  appear  un- 
til February  28,  1851.  Ex-Governor  Seabrook  said  that  Perry 
distributed  gratuitously  several  thousand  copies  of  this  paper 
weekly  and  charged  that  Waddy  Thompson  had  secured  $30,000 
from  the  national  administraton  for  its  support. 27  Whatever 
the  truth  of  this  statement,  the  Southern  Patriot  did  receive 
federal  patronage  to  the  extent  of  a  contract  to  publish  in  its 
columns  the  current  Acts  of  Congress.  A  copy  of  the  paper  was 
sent  to  Daniel  Webster  and  the  administration  in  other  ways 
kept  informed  of  the  situation  in  South  Carolina.  Perry  was  an 
able  and  astute  supporter  of  the  cause  of  the  Union.  He  admit- 
ted that  the  South  had  been  insulted  and  outraged,  but  he  de- 
clared that  secession  would  be  no  remedy.  He  pointed  out  that 
secession  would  separate  South  Carolina  from  the  other  South- 
ern states  who  had  all  acquiesced  in  the  compromise  measures. 
He  dwelt  at  length  on  the  disasters  that  would  overtake  the  state 
in  the  event  of  secession,  either  peaceful  or  by  force  of  arms.  He 
declared  that  the  members  of  the  state  convention  had  been 
elected  with  indecent  haste,  at  an  unusual  period,  and  before  the 
people  had  been  aroused  to  a  sense  of  their  danger.  He  urged 
that  the  convention  accept  the  compromise  measures  and  en- 

*  Letter  from  D.  Wallace  to  the  editor  of  the  Laurensville  Herald, 
Apr.  20,  1851,  printed  in  Spartan,  May  15,  1851. 

"  Soabrook  to  Quitman,  July  15,  1851,  Seabrook  MSS. 


92  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

deavor  to  secure  a  Southern  congress  to  adopt  a  platform  on 
which  all  Southern  states  could  stand  in  opposition  to  abolition. 
He  believed  that  thus  the  compromise  would  be  sustained  and 
the  rights  of  the  South  guaranteed  and  preserved  within  the 
Union. 28 

Perry  had  established  his  paper  when,  as  Judge  Evans  said, 
South  Carolina  seemed  to  be  going  for  secession  by  default. 29 
Despite  the  work  of  Perry,  whom  the  advocates  of  cooperative 
disunion  repudiated,  and  the  occasional  speeches  of  some  lead- 
ing men  who  were  becoming  alarmed  at  the  course  the  state  was 
taking,  the  secessionists  for  the  time  being  met  with  no  serious 
opposition.  For  three  months  following  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  state  convention,  there  was  little  agitation  of  the  ques- 
tion. A  number  of  Southern  Rights  Associations  met  during 
this  period,  however,  and  declared  for  separate  secession.  The 
great  majority  of  the  newspapers  took  the  same  position. 

In  January  the  Southern  Rights  Association  of  Charleston 
had  invited  the  other  association  in  South  Carolina  to  send  dele- 
gates to  a  general  convention  to  be  held  in  Charleston  the  first 
Monday  in  May,  the  purpose  of  which  should  be  to  discuss  the 
proper  mode  and  measure  of  redress  for  the  wrongs  of  the  state 
and  to  effect  a  more  perfect  organization  and  union  of  the  asso- 
ciations. 30  In  the  middle  and  upper  districts  there  was  some 
fear  expressed  that  Charleston,  apprehensive  of  injury  to  its 
commerce  and  the  possibility  of  an  invasion  by  federal  troops, 
was  growing  lukewarm  towards  separate  state  action,  and  that  it 
was  intended  to  use  the  Convention  of  Southern  Rights  Associa- 
tions to  prepare  South  Carolina  to  back  out  honorably  and  agree 
to  wait  an  unlimited  time  for  cooperation. 31  If  such  had  been 

*•  Southern  Patriot,  Mar.  21,  Apr.  4,  May  23,  1851. 
*  B.  F.  Perry,  Reminiscences  of  Public  Men. 
"Mercury,  Feb.  14,  1851. 

n  South  Carolinian,  Apr.  10;  Laurensville  Herald  quoted  in  ibid.,  Apr. 
1;  Mercury,  May  5,  1851. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  93 

the  intention,  quite  the  opposite  was  the  result.  Most  of  the 
Southern  Rights  Associations  throughout  the  state  were  in  the 
control  of  the  radicals  and  sent  down  delegates  in  such  numbers 
and  of  such  opinions  that  the  conservatives  were  completely  and 
decisively  defeated. 

The  Convention  of  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  met  in 
Charleston  for  a  four  day  session  beginning  May  5,  1851.  Dele- 
gates numbering  about  four  hundred  and  thirty  were  present 
from  every  district  in  the  state  except  Horry.  The  first  day  was 
devoted  to  organization.  Ex-Governor  J.  P.  Richardson,  who 
was  chosen  president  of  the  convention,  reviewed  elaborately  but 
calmly  the  wrongs  of  the  South,  and  assured  the  convention  that 
it  was  its  duty  to  determine  upon  the  remedy  and  how,  where, 
and  when  it  should  be  applied.  Judge  Cheves  was  not  present 
at  the  convention  but  he  sent  a  letter,  which  was  read  before  that 
body,  in  which  he  urged  that  South  Carolina  should  not  secede 
alone  and  thus  separate  herself  from  the  other  Southern  states, 
but  should  wait  upon  them  and  be  prepared  to  join  them  when 
they  should  be  ready  for  resistance.  He  warned  the  convention 
against  attempting  to  decide  for  the  state  the  question  of  sepa- 
rate secession,  a  step  which  he  declared  would  unfortunately  di- 
vide the  state  into  rival  and  hostile  parties. 

A  committee  of  twenty-one  was  appointed  to  prepare  and 
report  business  to  be  acted  on  by  the  convention.  For  this  com- 
mittee, on  the  following  day,  Maxcy  Gregg  submitted  an  Ad- 
dress to  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  of  other  Southern 
States  and  a  series  of  four  resolutions.  The  address  was  written 
in  a  spirit  which  took  for  granted  that  the  state  convention  would 
without  hesitation  provide  for  the  secession  of  South  Carolina 
from  the  Union,  and  was  in  the  nature  of  a  justification  of  sepa- 
rate action  by  the  state.  Almost  apologetically  it  explained  that 
South  Carolina  had  been  anxious  to  avoid  any  appearance  of  ar- 
rogance or  dictation,  had  desired  to  act  in  concert  and  do  noth- 


94  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

ing  separately  or  precipitately,  and  was  still  prepared  to  give  a 
trial  to  any  effectual  plan  which  might  be  proposed  by  the 
Southern  states  for  obtaining  redress  and  security  without  a  dis- 
solution of  the  Union  if  such  were  possible.  But  failing  to  se- 
cure this  cooperative  action,  the  address  declared  that  South 
Carolina  could  not  submit,  and  must  exercise  the  right  of  seces- 
sion, a  right  that  each  state  must  decide  for  itself  when  to  ex- 
ercise, though  it  would  remain  with  the  other  states  to  determine 
whether  they  would  permit  efforts  to  prevent  the  peaceful  exer- 
cise of  this  right  by  South  Carolina.  The  address  concluded: 
''The  gloomy  prospect  of  inevitable  ruin,  to  follow  submission, 
appears  to  us  more  formidable  than  any  dangers  to  be  encount- 
ered in  contending  alone,  against  whatever  odds  for  our  rights. 
We  have  come  to  the  deliberate  conclusion  that  if  it  be  our  fate 
to  be  left  alone  in  the  struggle,  alone  we  must  vindicate  our  lib- 
erty by  secession. ' ' 

The  resolutions  submitted  with  the  address  from  the  com- 
mittee of  twenty:one  formed  the  platform  of  the  secessionists 
who  were  in  control  of  the  state  convention  and  of  the  conven- 
tion of  Southern  Rights  Associations,  and  against  whom  no  open 
and  organized  opposition  of  any  serious  consequence  had  yet  de- 
veloped. For  these  reasons  the  resolutions  may  be  quoted  in 
full.  They  read  as  follows : 

"1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  meeting,  the 
State  of  South  Carolina  cannot  submit  to  the  wrongs  and  aggres- 
sions which  have  been  perpetrated  by  the  Federal  Government 
a'nd  the  Northern  states,  without  dishonor  and  ruin ;  and  that  it 
is  necessary  to  relieve  herself  therefrom,  whether  with  or  with- 
out the  cooperation  of  other  Southern  states. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  concert  of  action  with  one  or  more  of 
our  sister  States  of  the  South,  whether  through  the  proposed 
Southern  Congress,  or  in  any  other  manner,  is  an  object  worth 
many  sacrifices,  but  not  the  sacrifice  involved  in  submission. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  95 

"3.  Resolved,  That  we  hold  the  right  of  secession  to  be  es- 
sential to  the  sovereignty — freedom  of  the  States  of  this  Con- 
federacy ;  and  that  the  denial  of  that  right  would  furnish  to  an 
injured  State  the  strongest  additional  cause  for  its  exercise. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  this  meeting  looks  with  confidence  and 
hope  to  the  Convention  of  the  people,  to  exert  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  State  in  defense  of  its  rights,  at  the  earliest  prac- 
ticable period  and  in  the  most  effectual  manner ;  and  to  the  Leg- 
islature to  adopt  the  most  speedy  and  effectual  measures 
towards  the  same  end." 

A  minority  report,  signed  by  only  three  members  of  the 
committee,  dissented  from  the  majority  report  on  the  grounds 
that  it  departed  from  the  proper  objects  of  the  convention  and 
raised  issues  uncalled  for  by  the  occasion;  and  it  offered  a  sub- 
stitute resolution  leaving  to  the  state  convention  to  determine  the 
mode  and  measure  of  redress  as  well  as  the  time  of  its  applica- 
tion, and  pledging  support  to  the  decision  of  this  convention 
whether  that  should  be  for  secession  with  or  without  the  coop- 
eration of  the  other  Southern  states. 

Discussion  of  the  two  reports  occupied  the  last  two  days  of 
the  meeting.  In  support  of  the  majority  report  the  chief  speak- 
ers were  Maxcy  Gregg,  Congressman  W.  F.  Colcock  and  ex-Gov- 
ernor Seabrook.  In  opposition  were  Senator  Butler,  Robert  W. 
Barnwell,  and  Congressman  James  L.  Orr.  Colcock  declared 
that  cooperation  could  never  be  obtained  because  aggression 
would  be  so  gradual  that  no  clear  issue  on  which  the  whole  South 
could  unite  would  be  presented  by  any  uncautious  and  overt  act 
against  slavery  until  consolidation  and  abolition  had  gone  so  far 
that  escape  for  the  South  would  be  impossible.  South  Carolina 
by  seceding  should  present  the  issue.  If  coercion  followed,  then 
the  South  would  rally  to  her  aid ;  if  not,  then  she  would  continue 
an  independent  nation.  Butler  did  not  believe  that  secession 
would  result  in  armed  conflict  for  that  would  bring  the  South 


96  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

to  the  aid  of  the  state.  He  feared,  instead,  that  economic  and 
commercial  coercion  would  ruin  the  state  and  fail  to  arouse  the 
South.  He  was  confident  that  if  South  Carolina  should  refrain 
from  secession,  the  other  Southern  states  must  eventually  coop- 
erate with  her.  Barnwell  explained  to  the  convention  that  there 
was  danger  of  confusing  the  end  desired  by  South  Carolina  and 
the  means  that  might  be  employed  to  secure  that  end.  The  pro- 
tection of  slavery  he  asserted  to  be  the  end.  Secession  to  secure 
the  establishment  of  a  new  government  was  but  the  means  to  this 
end,  and  when  secession  could  lead  to  no  new  government  or  only 
to  one  exposing  slavery  to  greater  dangers,  secession  should  no 
longer  be  adhered  to  as  excellent  in  itself.  The  question,  he  said, 
was  not  resistance  or  submission,  but  the  formation  of  a  new 
government  that  would  protect  slavery.  For  the  formation  of 
this  government,  Barnwell  urged  that  South  Carolina  wait  until 
the  other  states  with  interests  equal  to  hers  were  ready  to  join 
her  in  accomplishing  its  establishment. 

The  speech  made  by  Orr  throws  some  light  on  the  motives 
which  influenced  the  secessionists,  to  whom,  however,  the  speaker 
was  opposed.  Orr  admitted  that  in  the  convention  and  perhaps 
throughout  the  state  the  majority  was  overwhelming  in  favor  of 
separate  state  action,  but  he  asserted  that  few  if  any  would  sup- 
port secession  if  they  thought  that  South  Carolina  as  a  result 
would  constitute  a  republic  independent  of  and  isolated  from  the 
Southern  states.  Yet  such  would  be  the  practical  result,  he  de- 
clared, if  no  coercion  were  attempted  by  the  federal  government. 
As  a  foreign  state,  the  commerce  of  South  Carolina  would  be  al- 
most completely  destroyed,  her  products  would  have  to  pay  heavy 
duties  when  exported  to  the  United  States,  and  the  products 
bought  from  the  North  would  be  increased  in  price  by  the  amount 
of  South  Carolina's  tax  on  imports.  The  Wilmot  Proviso,  he 
said,  had  been  resisted  by  South  Carolina  because  it  would  have 
restricted  slavery  and  made  it  valueless  in  proportion  to  the  in- 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  97 

crease  in  its  numbers ;  yet  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  would 
put  the  same  principle  into  operation  by  effectually  preventing 
the  exportation  of  slaves  to  any  of  the  other  states.  The  argu- 
ment so  far  was  based  on  the  assumption  that  South  Carolina 
would  be  allowed  peacefully  to  secede.  Assuming  on  the  other 
hand  that  force  would  be  used  against  the  state  by  the  federal 
government,  Orr  declared  that  coercion  would  take  the  form  of  a 
blockade,  a  form  that  would  excite  no  sympathy  in  the  other 
Southern  states  on  which  the  secessionists  relied.  Nor  was  the 
commerce  of  South  Carolina  sufficiently  great  to  induce  Great 
Britain  or  any  other  power  to  interfere.  Patience,  Orr  promised, 
would  gain  the  cooperation  of  other  Southern  states,  either  in 
forcing  guarantees  within  the  Union  or  in  forming  a  Southern 
confederacy.  But  five  years  previous,  he  pointed  out,  disunion 
would  not  have  been  tolerated  even  in  South  Carolina,  and  now 
there  was  not  a  Union  man  in  the  assembly  which  he  addressed. 
In  the  other  cotton  states  the  value  of  the  Union  was  openly  cal- 
culated and  disunion  advocated.  Though  temporarily  stopped, 
there  were  signs  of  a  continuation  of  Northern  aggression,  and 
the  time  would  soon  arrive  when  South  Carolina  could  rally  un- 
der a  Southern  banner  at  the  bidding  of  her  Southern  allies. 

Despite  the  opposition  of  Butler  and  Barnwell  and  Orr,  the 
delegates  from  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  were  not  moved 
from  their  determination  to  dictate  the  policy  of  separate  seces- 
sion for  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  The  minority  report  was 
tabled,  the  address  was  adopted  with  but  one  dissenting  voice, 
and  the  resolutions  as  reported  by  the  committee  of  twenty-one 
accepted  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote.  The  meeting  then 
formed  itself  into  the  Southern  Rights  Association  of  the  State 
of  South  Carolina.  It  provided  for  a  permanent  organization 
with  semi-annual  meetings  and  regularly  chosen  delegates  num- 
bering double  the  number  of  senators  and  representatives  from 
each  district.  It  directed  the  president  to  appoint  a  central 


98  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

committee  of  nine  whose  duty  should  be  to  promote  the  common 
cause  by  correspondence,  by  publishing  and  circulating  docu- 
ments, and  by  all  other  proper  means. 32 

To  the  minds  of  some  secessionists  the  Charleston  meeting 
of  delegates  had  settled  the  whole  question  definitely  and  seces- 
sion was  inevitable. 33  Maxcy  Gregg  for  a  time  thought  that  the 
movement  would  go  quietly  on  gathering  strength  until  the  whole 
state  should  be  secured, 3*  yet  he  realized  the  danger  of  a  pos- 
sible organized  opposition  of  sufficient  vigor  to  cause  serious 
embarassment  to  the  secessionists.  To  John  A.  Quitman  he 
wrote :  "I  beg  of  you  to  withhold  any  expression  of  opinion 
against  the  movement  until  you  have  had  time  for  a  deliberate 
survey  of  affairs.  An  expression  of  opinion  by  you  (even  if 
made  in  reply  to  some  private  and  confidential  communication 
from  a  wavering  leader)  against  the  policy  which  has  been 
adopted  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  meeting  just  ad- 
journed, might  cause  some  fatal  defection.  For  God's  sake,  let 
the  resistance  leaders  of  Mississippi  express  no  hasty  opinion 
against  us. ' ' 35  Governor  Means  wrote,  ' '  There  is  now  not  the 
slightest  doubt  but  that  the  next  Legislature  will  call  the  con- 
vention together  at  a  period  during  the  ensuing  year,  and  when 
that  convention  meets  the  state  will  secede."  What  the  seces- 
sionists expected  from  the  other  Southern  states  the  governor  in- 
dicated when  he  assured  Quitman  that  South  Carolina  would 
lead  off,  even  if  she  had  to  stand  alone,  but  trusting  that  her  sis- 


M  Pamphlet:  "Proceedings  of  the  Meeting  of  Delegates  from  the 

Southern  Rights  Associations  of  South  Carolina "  See  also  Courier, 

May  6-9,  1851.  Pamphlet:  "Speech  of  the  Hon.  W.  F.  Colcock  " 

Barnwell's  speech  in  Courier,  May  27,  1851.  Orr's  speech  in  Charleston 
Evening  News,  June  2,  1851. 

83  Hammond  to  Simms,  May  24,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 

**A.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  16,  1851,  ibid. 

K  Maxcy  Gregg  to  Quitman,  May  9,  1851,  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman, 
II,  132-133. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  99 

ter  states  would  unite  with  her  in  the  attempt  to  save  Southern 
institutions  from  ruin  and  the  South  from  degradation. 36  Gregg 
made  this  still  clearer  when  he  wrote  regarding  the  course  the  re- 
sistance party  in  Mississippi  should  take:  "Let  them  contend 
manfully  for  secession,  and,  even  if  beaten  in  the  elections,  they 
will  form  a  minority  so  powerful  in  moral  influence  that,  when 
South  Carolina  secedes,  the  first  drop  of  blood  that  is  shed  will 
cause  an  irresistible  popular  impulse  in  their  favor,  and  the 
submissionists  will  be  crushed.  Let  the  example  be  set  in  Missis- 
sippi, and  it  will  be  followed  in  Alabama  and  Georgia.  Impart- 
ing and  receiving  courage  from  each  other's  efforts,  the  Southern 
Rights  men  will  be  ready  to  carry  everything  before  them  in  all 
the  three  states  the  moment  the  first  blow  is  struck  in  South 
Carolina."37 

The  secessionists  were  more  justified  in  their  fear  that  ser- 
ious opposition  might  develop  against  their  schemes  than  in  their 
confidence  that  the  Southern  Rights  Association  Convention  cor- 
rectly expressed  the  sentiments  of  the  state  and  that  secession  by 
South  Carolina  was  an  event  already  definitely  and  finally  de- 
termined. In  the  light  of  later  developments  the  action  of  the 
Charleston  convention,  its  virtual  dictation  of  secession  as  the 
action  that  the  state  convention  should  take,  was  a  grave  blun- 
der. The  radicals  in  control  of  that  meeting  were  able  easily  to 
carry  out  their  plans  in  spite  of  the  opposition  that  developed 
from  the  Charleston  delegation  and  from  Barnwell,  Butler,  and 
Orr,  but  their  extreme  measures  hastened  the  reaction  against 
their  headlong  course  and  forced  the  organization  of  a  party  of 
opposition.  Conservative  men,  numbering  among  them  most  of 
the  ablest  and  best  known  leaders  of  the  state,  who  were  sincere 
disunionists  and  advocates  of  a  Southern  confederacy,  were 

"Means  to  Quitman,  May  12,  1851,  ibid.,  133-134. 
"Maxcy  Gregg  to  Quitman,  May  15,  1851,  ibid.,  134-135. 


100         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

aroused  by  the  action  of  the  Charleston  convention  to  a  realiza- 
tion of  the  dangerous  extent  to  which  the  secessionists  were  in 
control  of  affairs  and  what  extreme  measures  they  were  pre- 
pared to  adopt.  They  believed  that  secession  by  South  Carolina 
would  result  only  in  humiliation  and  disaster  for  the  state  and 
defeat  for  the  cause  of  Southern  Rights  and  a  Southern  confed- 
eracy. Justly  or  unjustly,  some  of  them  at  least,  believed  that 
Rhett  was  playing  a  game,  expecting  the  majority  for  secession 
to  be  too  small  to  make  secession  practicable,  yet  large  enough  to 
insure  the  control  of  the  state  by  himself  and  his  faction. 3S 

Both  Petigru  and  Poinsett  reported  that  the  Convention  of 
Southern  Rights  Associations  was  followed  by  a  considerable 
reaction  in  Charleston. 39  During  the  session  of  that  convention 
those  who  opposed  the  course  that  it  was  to  take  held  several 
caucus  meetings  to  consider  what  should  be  done  ' '  to  arrest  the 
headlong  movements  of  the  Secessionists. ' '  They  decided  to  pro- 
ceed along  three  lines  of  action :  first,  to  buy  the  Mercury,  or,  if 
that  could  not  be  done,  to  establish  a  new  paper  in  Charleston  to 
advocate  Southern  cooperation  and  resistance  to  the  North;  sec- 
ond, to  publish  and  distribute  the  speeches  of  Butler,  Barnwell 
and  Orr  and  letters  from  prominent  resistance  men  in  other 
states  opposing  separate  secession  by  South  Carolina ;  and  third, 
to  secure  the  control  of  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  by  the 
resistance  men  as  contradistinguished  from  the  secessionists  and 

**  On  this  point  see  A.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  16 ;  Hammond 
to  Simms,  May  24;  Simms  to  Hammond,  June  9,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 
It  should  be  remembered  that  Rhett  had  defeated  Hammond  for  the  Senate 
in  Dec.  1850.  Poinsett  wrote  thus  of  both  disunion  parties :  ' '  Depend  upon 
it  the  interests  of  the  slave  holder  and  the  slave,  the  bond  and  the  free 
throughout  these  United  States  will  best  be  promoted  by  calming  as  early 
and  as  far  as  possible  the  dangerous  agitation  which  originated  and  has 
been  kept  up  by  political  Demagogues  for  their  own  sordid  purposes. ' ' 
Poinsett  to  Edward  Cole,  Mar.  28,  1851,  Poinsett  MSS. 

"Petigru  to  his  sister,  May  14,  1851,  Allston,  "Life  of  Petigru"  in 
Chas.  Sunday  News,  Mar.  11,  1900;  letter  from  Poinsett  in'  Southern  Pa- 
triot, June  6,  1851. 


SECESSION  ADVOCATED  101 

the  Union  men,  and  to  shape  the  policy  of  these  associations  so  as 
to  keep  up  the  spirit  of  the  people  without  running  into  revolu- 
tion. 40  This  was  action  which  the  secessionists  feared  despite 
their  assurance  that  the  question  of  secession  had  been  settled. 
Seabrook  expressed  it  when  he  urged  Senator  Butler  to  use  his 
influence  to  assure  both  North  and  South  that  South  Carolina 
was  in  earnest  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  inevitable 
unless  her  grievances  were  redressed ;  and  concluded,  ' '  An  oppo- 
sition party  headed  by  you,  Orr  and  Barnwell,  is  what  many  men 
desire,  but  which  I  and  my  friends  dread. ' ' 41 

The  complete  breach  between  the  two  wings  of  the  disunion- 
ists,  though  unescapable,  developed  only  slowly  for  some  weeks. 
Representative  A.  Burt,  upon  a  request  for  his  opinion,  replied 
that  the  leading  object  of  secession  was  to  preserve  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery,  and  that  this  object  could  not  be  obtained  by  the 
secession  of  South  Carolina  alone  but  only  by  the  secession  of  the 
"slaveholding  states  and  the  formation  of  a  Southern  confederacy. 
He  expected  that  the  federal  authorities  would  coerce  the  state 
in  the  event  of  secession  and  no  aid  could  be  expected  from  the 
other  Southern  states. 42  In  Charleston,  the  Evening  News,  with 
new  editors  in  charge,  came  out  in  advocacy  of  disunion  but  in 
opposition  to  separate  secession  by  South  Carolina. 43  The  op- 
ponents of  secession  secured  another  paper  in  Charleston  when 
the  Sun  was  purchased  and  merged  with  the  Southern  Standard. 
On  July  1,  1851,  the  first  issue  of  this  paper  appeared  in  advo- 
cacy of  a  Southern  confederacy  and  in  opposition  to  separate 
secession. 44  But  the  great  majority  of  the  newspapers  of  the 
state  remained  ardent  supporters  of  the  policy  of  separate  se- 
cession. 

40  A.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  16,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 
11  Seabrook  to  A.  P.  Butler,  May  12,  1851,  Seabrook  MSS. 
"Letter  published  in  Mercury,  May  24;  Spartan,  June  5,  1851. 
a  Evening  News,  May  27,  28,  1851. 
**  Prospectus  in  Evening  News,  June  7,  1851. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1851 

Though  the  Convention  of  Southern  Rights  Associations 
split  the  disunionists  of  South  Carolina  into  two  factions,  though 
it  aroused  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  state  to  oppose  the  course 
determined  upon  by  that  convention  and  led  to  the  establishment 
or  purchase  of  some  newspapers  to  give  expression  to  that  opposi- 
tion, popular  agitation  which  would  reopen  the  question  of  se- 
cession for  decision  by  the  fully  aroused  people  was  somewhat 
slow  in  developing.  In  the  up-country  Perry  called  for  popular 
meetings  to  protest  against  secession,  to  instruct  their  delegates 
to  the  convention  so  to  vote,  and  to  demand  that  the  action  of  the 
convention  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejec- 
tion. l  A  meeting  in  the  town  of  Hamburg,  "a  nest  of  North- 
ern Whiggery, ' '  Maxcy  Gregg  called  it,  on  May  31  was  the  first 
of  these.  While  urging  most  strongly  the  necessity  of  the  co- 
operation of  the  Southern  states  to  secure  the  perpetuation  of 
slavery,  the  resolutions  of  this  meeting  opposed  the  separate  se- 
cession of  South  Carolina  as  insufficient  and  utterly  inadequate 
as  a  remedy  for  past  wrongs  or  as  a  security  against  more  threat- 
ening dangers  in  the  future.  They  also  called  on  the  people  of 
South  Carolina  holding  similar  views  to  hold  meetings  in  re- 
sponse to  the  Hamburg  resolutions. 2  Though  a  Greenville 
meeting  on  June  2  also  opposed  secession  but  made  no  mention  of 
cooperative  disunion, 3  for  a  month  longer  the  opposition  to  se- 
cession languished. 


1  Southern  Patriot,  May  23,  1851. 

1  Courier,  June  5,  1851. 

1  Evening  News,  June  12,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1851  103 

Yet  the  movement  begun  by  Barnwell,  Butler  and  Orr  and 
by  these  meetings  had  its  effect  upon  the  people  and  upon  the 
secessionists.  The  leaders  of  the  latter  were  chiefly  young  men 
comparatively  unknown  to  the  people.  The  secessionists  began 
to  doubt  whether  the  Charleston  convention  had  correctly  rep- 
resented the  will  of  the  people  of  the  state  and  to  fear  that  they 
would  not  have  a  two-thirds'  majority  in  the  state  convention, 
without  which  they  thought  it  would  be  dangerous  to  secede. 
Regarding  the  situation  in  Mississippi  and  the  probable  atti- 
tude that  the  Southern  Rights  party  in  that  and  other  states 
would  take  towards  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  they  were 
more  than  ever  solicitous. 4  To  them  Quitman  sent  assurances  of 
the  strength  of  his  party  in  Mississippi  and  reported  that 
though  his  state  could  not  secede  alone,  popular  feeling  warmly 
responded  to  the  sentiments  he  had  publicly  expressed  that 
should  South  Carolina  secede  and  the  federal  government  at- 
tempt to  coerce  her,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  Mississippi,  regard- 
less of  consequences,  to  throw  herself  into  the  contest  and  aid 
her  sister  state.  He  urged  that  there  was  no  hope  of  effective 
action  by  the  united  Southern  states  and  that  the  destiny  of  the 
slaveholding  states  depended  upon  the  bold  arid  prompt  action 
of  South  Carolina. 5 

Even  Rhett,  who  more  than  any  other  secessionist  attempt- 
ed to  explain  the  prosperity  that  South  Carolina  would  enjoy 
as  an  independent  nation,  expected  that  secession  by  South  Car- 
olina would  force  other  Southern  states  to  disunion  and  coop- 
eration in  opposition  to  coercion.  On  June  28,  at  a  celebration 
of  the  battle  of  Fort  Moultrie,  he  offered  this  toast :  ' '  Co-opera- 
tion— our  fathers  obtained  it  by  seizing  the  stamps,  and  by  fir- 
ing the  guns  of  Fort  Moultrie."  Above  the  assemblage  floated 

4Seabrook     to    Quitman,    June     9,  July     15,    1851,    Claiborne    MSS. 
Printed  in  part  in  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  II,  139-143. 
•  Quitman  to  Seabrook,  June  26,  1851,  Seabrook  MSS. 


104         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

only  the  South  Carolina  flag.  The  speeches  and  toasts  were 
violent  in  the  extreme.  The  future  of  the  Union  was  thus  toast- 
ed: "God  help  us,  and  it  shall  have  none."  Gen.  John  A.  Quit- 
man  was  cheered  as  the  first  president  of  the  Southern  Repub- 
lic.e 

Rhett's  toast  was  quite  correctly  interpreted  by  Unionists 
to  mean  that  South  Carolina  would  secede  and  force  the  South 
to  follow  her. 7  Thus  the  campaign  in  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  on  the  right  of  secession  had  a  very  practical  bearing 
on  the  South  Carolina  movement.  The  strength  of  the  position 
taken  by  the  state-actionists,  that  secession  by  South  Carolina 
would  unite  the  South  and  bring  cooperation, 8  is  shown  by  the 
position  of  Howell  Cobb,  Union  candidate  for  governor  of 
Georgia.  Cobb  denied  the  constitutional  right  of  secession,  but 
he  replied  to  questions  as  to  what  course  he  would  take  as  gov- 
ernor should  a  requisition  be  made  on  him  by  the  president  for 
militia  to  coerce  a  seceding  state :  ' '  This  question  may  become  a 

practical  one I  should  endeavor  to  be  the  Executive  of  the 

will  of  the  people  of  Georgia I  should recommend . . 

....  a  convention  of  the  people,  and  it  would  be  for  that  conven- 
tion   to  determine  whether  Georgia  would  go  out  of  the 

Union  and  ally  herself  and  peril  her  destinies  with  the  seceding 
state,  or  whether  she  would  remain  in  the  Union  and  abide  the 
fortunes  of  her  other  sisters But  if  a  collision  of  arms  be- 
tween the  states  comprising  our  glorious  confederacy  should  ever 
come the  Union  would  fall  beneath  the  weight  of  revolu- 
tion and  blood,  and  fall,  I  fear,  to  rise  no  more. ' ' 9 


6  Mercury,  July  2,  1851. 

7  John  B.  Lamar  to  Howell  Cobb,  July  3,  1851,  Toombs,  Stephens  and 
Correspondence,  242. 

8  See  pamphlet :   ' '  Tracts  for  the  People  No.  7.     Secession  First — Co- 
operation After. ' ' 

'  Howell  Cobb  to  John  Rutherford  and  Others,  Aug.  12,  1851,  Toombs, 
Stephens  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  249-259. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  105 

The  fourth  of  July  in  South  Carolina  was  ordinarily  a  day 
devoted  to  patriotic  exercises.  There  were  bands,  parades,  pub- 
lic dinners,  the  reading  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
much  oratory  and  many  toasts.  Independence  day  in  1851,  how- 
ever, was  devoted  in  all  sections  of  the  state  not  to  praise  of  the 
Union  but  to  its  condemnation  in  violent  and  bitter  language. 
Rhett  and  other  fiery  orators  recounted  the  wrongs  of  the  South, 
the  injustice  and  oppression  that  she  suffered  in  the  Union,  and 
vehemently  asserted  that  every  consideration  of  honor  and  self- 
interest  and  self-preservation  demanded  a  dissolution  of  that 
Union.  As  one  speaker  expressed  it,  the  people  of  South  Caro- 
lina had  assembled,  not  as  on  former  occasions  to  honor  the  day, 
but  to  hear  the  recital  of  their  wrongs.  Toasts  were  offered  with 
sentiments  such  as  these:  "The  Government  of  the  United  States 
— A  sectional  tyranny,  a  free  soil  monopoly  of  the  rights,  the 
treasure,  and  the  territory  of  the  South,"  and:  "The  Union — A 
servile  yoke  to  the  Southern  States. ' ' 10 

While  the  secessionists  were  the  leaders  in  most  of  these 
celebrations,  in  Greenville  the  Unionists  and  the  cooperationists 
held  their  first  great  meeting  in  opposition  to  secession.  Before 
a  crowd  estimated  at  four  thousand,  letters  from  William  C. 
Preston,  Judge  John  Benton  0  'Neall,  Senator  A.  P.  Butler,  Joel 
R.  Poinsett,  Francis  Lieber  and  others  opposed  to  secession  were 
read.  Waddy  Thompson  addressed  the  meeting  and  B.  F.  Perry 
offered  the  report  and  resolutions  which  were  adopted.  The  res- 
olutions were  lengthy.  They  praised  slavery  as  an  institution 
beneficial  both  to  the  slave  and  to  the  country,  and  they  declared 
that  the  people  of  Greenville  would  defend  it  at  all  hazards  and 
to  the  last  extremity.  But  secession,  they  pointed  out,  would 
destroy  slavery  in  South  Carolina,  involve  the  country  in  ruin- 


10 South  Carolinian,  July  15,  1851.     Pamphlet:   "Substance  of  an  Ad- 
dress delivered  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  1851 by  Hon..  Richard  DeTre- 

ville." 


106         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

ous  taxation  and  civil  war,  and  result  in  dishonor  and  disgrace  to 
the  state.  They  looked  to  cooperation  for  the  defense  of  South- 
ern rights,  and  recommended  that  anti-secession  meetings  be 
held  throughout  the  state.  They  demanded  that  the  convention, 
"so  revolutionary  in  its  purposes  and  so  unfairly  elected  by  a 
minority  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina,"  be  not  convened, 
and  that  in  the  event  of  its  assembling  the  Greenville  delegates 
vote  against  secession.  The  final  resolution  declared  that  if  an 
ordinance  of  secession  should  be  passed  and  not  submitted  to  the 
people  for  ratification,  it  would  "be  treated  as  a  nullity  by  a 
large  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State. ' '  "  By  the  end  of 
July  a  number  of  other  meetings  opposed  to  separate  secession 
by  South  Carolina  had  been  held,  and  the  definite  campaign  of 
the  cooperationists  thus  begun.  Except  in  a  very  few  districts 
this  party  had  no  formal  organization. 

The  secessionists  controlled  most  of  the  local  as  well  as  the 
state  organization  of  the  Southern  Rights  Association.  The 
Charleston  Association,  however,  was  controlled  by  the  coopera- 
tionists. Its  committee  of  safety  had  met  regularly  for  some 
months  after  the  organization  of  the  association  in  the  preceding 
October,  though  with  never  more  than  thirteen  of  the  thirty- 
three  members  present.  It  had  been  active  in  publishing  tracts 
and  pamphlets  and  had  conducted  a  somewhat  extensive  corre- 
spondence. But  soon  after  the  Charleston  convention  of  South- 
ern Rights  Associations  the  committee  had  ceased  to  meet. 12  Nor 
was  a  call  issued  for  the  regular  meeting  of  the  association  for 
July  1,  as  provided  for  in  the  constitution  of  the  organization. 
The  secessionists  charged,  with  truth,  that  the  officers  had  be- 
come non-actionists  and  desired  to  abolish  the  association,  and 
they  issued  a  call  for  the  formation  of  a  new  association.  On 

11  Evening  News,  July  14,  1851 ;  Southern  Patriot,  July  11,  18,  1851. 
a  Statement  of  I.  W.  Hayne,  chairman  of  the  committee,  in  Mercury, 
July  14,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1851  107 

July  23  the  secessionists  of  Charleston  organized  their  Auxiliary 
Southern  Rights  Association. 13  Five  days  later  their  first  reg- 
ular monthly  meeting  was  addressed  by  Rhett.  Their  platform 
was  essentially  that  of  the  May  convention  of  Southern  Rights 
Associations,  that  South  Carolina  could  not  wait  for  any  new  is- 
sue to  be  presented,  and  failing  within  a  reasonable  time  to  obtain 
the  cooperation  of  the  other  Southern  states,  should  withdraw 
alone  from  the  Union. 14 

The  opposition  to  secession  was  formally  launched  in 
Charleston  when  almost  1200  citizens  of  that  city  signed  a  call 
for  a  public  meeting  to  give  expression  to  the  views  of  those  who 
were  "in  favor  of  Co-operation  for  the  purpose  of  resistance  to 

the  aggressions  of  the  Federal  Government  but opposed  the 

Separate  Secession  of  South  Carolina  from  the  Union  under  ex- 
isting circumstances. ' '  The  meeting  was  held  on  the  evening  of 
July  29.  Letters  from  Cheves,  Orr,  and  Col.  James  Chesnut, 
Jr.,  approving  the  objects  of  the  meeting,  were  read  and  later 
published.  Butler  and  Barnwell  spoke  in  opposition  to  separate 
state  action.  The  temper  of  the  meeting  was  well  shown  when  it 
laid  on  the  table  by  an  overwhelming  vote  a  resolution  declaring 
that  it  would  be  treason  for  any  South  Carolinian  to  oppose 
separate  secession,  if  that  course  of  action  should  be  resolved 
upon  by  the  constitutional  authorities  of  the  state. 

The  wording  of  the  call  for  this  meeting  gives  in  brief  the 
position  of  those  opposed  to  separate  state  secession.  This  posi- 
tion was  set  forth  at  length  in  a  series  of  six  resolutions  which 
the  meeting  adopted.  On  the  platform  formed  by  these  resolu- 
tions the  cooperationists  made  their  fight  against  separate  se- 
cession. The  first  declared  that  measures  taken  by  the  North 
indicated  a  deep-rooted  hostility  to  the  interests  of  the  South 


"Ibid.,  July  22,  24,  1851. 
"  Courier,  July  30,  1851. 


108         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

and  a  settled  purpose  to  deprive  the  Southern  states  of  their 
original  rank  as  sovereigns  and  equals  in  the  Confederacy,  and 
that  the  inevitable  result  must  ultimately  be  the  entire  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  and  the  erection  of  a  consolidated  government  in 
place  of  the  Federal  Union.  The  second  resolution  expressed  the 
belief  of  the  meeting  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  Union 
should  be  dissolved  and  a  Southern  confederacy  organized,  but 
declared  a  willingness  to  try  any  plan  short  of  dissolving  the 
Union,  which  the  sister  states  of  South  Carolina  might  propose 
for  the  restoration  of  equal  rights  and  for  the  provision  of  ade- 
quate guarantees  for  the  future  security  of  the  Southern  states. 
The  third  stated  that  the  proper  mode  of  procedure  for  South 
Carolina  was  to  make  common  cause  with  her  aggrieved  confed- 
erates and  to  "unite  with  them  in  council  and  action  to  obtain 
redress  for  our  common  wrongs;  'such  concert  of  action/  ac- 
cording to  the  views  of  our  own  Calhoun,  being  'the  one  thing 
needful,'  whether  to  save  the  Union,  or  if  (as  we  believe)  that 
be  now  too  late,  then  'to  save  ourselves.'  !  The  fourth  resolu- 
tion read  as  follows: 

''Resolved,  That  in  the  present  aspect  of  our  political  af- 
fairs we  deprecate  separate  secession  of  South  Carolina  from 
the  Union :  1st.  Because  it  is  due  to  our  Southern  confederates 
having  a  common  interest  and  threatened  by  a  common  danger, 
to  take  counsel  with  them,  <and  especially  with  such  of  their  cit- 
izens as  are  known  to  be  our  faithful  and  devoted  friends,  as  to 
the  mode  and  measure  of  redress  for  our  common  wrongs;  and 
because  our  precipitate  secession  from  the  Union,  in  opposition 
to  their  views  and  wishes,  would  seem  as  if  we  claimed  to  be  the 
exclusive  champions  of  Southern  Eights,  an  assumption  which 
could  not  but  be  regarded  as  arrogant  in  us,  and  insulting  to 
them — thus,  in  place  of  harmony  of  feeling,  and  concert  of  ac- 
tion, provoking  jealousies,  and  sowing  the  seeds  of  discord  be- 
tween us  and  our  natural  allies,  and  operating  to  prevent  the 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  109 

formation  of  a  Southern  Confederacy.  2.  Because  our  separate 
secession  would  be  eminently  premature  and  unwise  at  this  time, 
when  we  may  fairly  calculate  on  the  cooperation  of  other  States 
at  no  distant  period,  since  the  effect  of  renewed  agitation  and 
continued  aggression  by  Northern  fanatics — results  which  may 
be  regarded  as  absolutely  certain,  must  inevitably  be,  to  bring 
up  some  of  our  sister  states  of  the  South  to  the  same  position 
which  we  now  occupy,  and  then  operate  to  ensure  the  formation 
of  a  Southern  Confederacy.  3d.  Because  South  Carolina,  by 
separate  secession,  would  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of  a  foreign 
government  to  the  other  slaveholding  states  of  this  Union,  the 
effect  of  which  would  be,  that,  under  the  laws  of  Congress,  pro- 
hibiting the  migration  or  importation  of  slaves  from  a  foreign 
country  into  the  United  States,  we  should  be  subjected  practic- 
ally to  the  '  Wilmot  Proviso, '  in  its  most  aggravated  form.  4th : 
Because  in  all  her  public  resolves,  South  Carolina  has  given  no 
other  pledge — has  avowed  no  other  determination,  than  to  co- 
operate with  her  sister  states  of  the  South  in  resisting  these  ag- 
gressions ;  and,  finally,  because  in  the  present  posture  of  affairs, 
to  dissolve  our  union  with  the  South,  and  thus  isolate  ourselves 
from  the  sympathies  and  support  of  those  with  whom  we  are 
bound  together  in  a  common  destiny,  would  be  not  only  abortive 
as  a  measure  of  deliverance,  but  if  not  utterly  suicidal  in  its  ef- 
fects, in  the  highest  degree  dangerous  to  the  stability  of  our 
Institutions. ' ' 

While  the  fourth  resolution  thus  opposed  separate  secession, 
the  fifth  upheld  the  right  of  secession  as  essential  to  the  sover- 
eignty and  freedom  of  each  member  of  the  Union,  a  right  no 
longer  to  be  questioned.  The  sixth  declared  that  the  hope  of 
the  South  for  deliverance  rested  on  the  formation  of  a  Southern 
confederacy.  It  also  set  forth  the  position  of  the  cooperationists 
relative  to  the  action  that  the  state  convention  should  take.  It 
recommended  that  the  convention  devise  measures  to  bring  about 


110         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

a  system  of  concert  and  cooperation  among  the  slave  states  in  re- 
sisting the  aggressions  of  the  federal  government,  and  also  to  de- 
termine what  relation  to  that  government  it  should  meanwhile 
become  South  Carolina  to  occupy,  and  at  the  same  time  to  pre- 
scribe to  the  constitutional  authorities  of  the  state  such  a  course 
of  action  as  would  "enable  them  to  take  advantage  of  all  emer- 
gencies, and  be  prepared  for  all  results. ' ' 

These  were  exceedingly  vague  recommendations  for  the  state 
convention.  Likewise  vague  were  the  avowed  purposes  of  the 
Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Conference  and  the  Committee  of 
Correspondence  for  the  creation  of  which  the  meeting  made  pro- 
vision. The  purpose  of  the  former  was  to  recommend  measures 
to  unite  the  public  sentiment  of  the  city  and  of  the  state  in  sup- 
port of  the  principles  expressed  in  the  foregoing  resolutions. 
That  of  the  latter  committee  was  to  correspond  with  the  citizens 
of  South  Carolina  and  other  states  for  the  purpose  of  combining 
Southern  feeling  and  making  it  conduce  to  united  Southern  ac- 
tion. 15  The  cooperationists,  as  they  called  themselves,  were  bet- 
ter able  to  fight  secession  than  to  propose  any  definite  and  prac- 
ticable plan  for  cooperative  action  in  forming  a  new  confederacy 
or,  indeed,  for  cooperative  action  of  any  kind. 

Thus  formally  launched,  the  campaign  against  secession  and 
the  counter  campaign  thus  forced  upon  the  secessionists  in  de- 
fense of  their  policy,  soon  developed  into  the  most  bitter  and 
most  hotly  contested  that  the  state  had  known  since  the  days  of 
the  controversy  over  nullification.  In  all  sections  of  the  state 
the  partizans  of  both  factions  held  mass  meetings,  barbecues, 
public  dinners,  parades.  Orators  of  the  day  divided  their 
speeches  between  denunciation  of  the  North  and  denunciation  of 
those  who  opposed  their  particular  remedy  for  the  evils  suffered 


15  Pamphlet :  ' '  Southern  Eights  Documents.     Co-operation  meeting  held 
in  Charleston,  S.  C.,  July  29,  1851." 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  111 

from  a  continuance  of  the  political  union  with  the  North.  The 
secessionists  spoke  thus  of  the  measure  advocated  by  their  op- 
ponents: "Co-operation,  The  name  which  makes  cowardice  re- 
spectable, and  the  cloak  which  conceals  treason  to  South  Caro- 
lina." On  the  other  hand  the  separate  secession  of  South  Caro- 
lina was  termed  the  wildest  folly  of  self-seeking  men,  a  measure 
that  would  result  in  inevitable  ruin  and  humiliation.  The  news- 
papers of  both  parties  were  filled  with  editorials,  speeches,  and 
anonymous  contributions  on  the  questions  of  secession  and  coop- 
eration. Pamphlets  by  the  hundreds  were  printed  and  distri- 
buted throughout  the  state. 

In  advocacy  of  secession  Robert  Barnwell  Rhett  was  per- 
haps the  most  ardent  worker.  For  more  than  two  months  Rhett 
toured  the  state  delivering  speeches  in  all  sections.  His  argu- 
ments did  not  vary  greatly  from  those  given  in  other  speeches 
that  have  been  considered.  He  traced  the  history  of  abolition 
and  Northern  aggression  upon  slavery  to  prove  his  contention 
that  when  sufficient  free  states  should  be  created  out  of  the  ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States  the  institution  of  slavery  would  be 
abolished  by  constitutional  amendment.  Furthermore,  he  con- 
tended that  in  addition  to  the  slavery  question  the  South  was  op- 
pressed and  discriminated  against  in  'both  the  collection  and 
expenditure  of  revenue,  and  on  these  grounds  found  additional 
justification  for  secession.  He  declared  that  the  secession  of 
South  Carolina  could  have  only  two  possible  results :  either  the 
other  Southern  states  would  be  forced  to  join  her  in  the  forma- 
tion of  a  Southern  confederacy,  or  South  Carolina  would  main- 
tain herself  as  an  independent  and  prosperous  state.  He  urged 
that  the  only  method  by  which  cooperation  could  be  secured  was 
the  separate  secession  of  South  Carolina. 16 

This  idea,  that  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  would  be  fol- 

18  See  speeches  July  4  in  Chester  District  and  Sept.  2  in  Lancaster. 
Mercury  July  8,  Sept.  8,  1851. 


112         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

lowed  by  the  cooperation  of  other  states,  was  constantly  urged  by 
the  speakers  and  the  newspapers  which  supported  the  cause  of 
separate  state  secession.  Such  was  the  promise  made  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  First  Congressional  District  in  an  address  written  by 
"William  H.  Gist,  later  governor  of  South  Carolina,  and  issued  by 
the  convention  of  the  secessionists  of  that  District:  "By  this 
movement  [secession]  a  practical  issue  will  be  made,  and  the 
people  of  the  South  no  longer  deluded  by  the  politicians  will 
rush  to  our  rescue,  and  upon  the  ruins  of  the  old  corrupt  govern- 
ment will  be  established  a  Southern  Confederacy,  uniting  a  peo- 
ple by  the  indissoluble  bonds  of  a  like  institution  and  similar 
pursuits,  and  commanding  the  respect  and  admiration  of  the 
world. ' ' 17  Congressman  Wallace  from  this  district  came  out 
definitely  for  secession  as  the  surest  way  to  obtain  cooperation. 
But  with  regard  to  Rhett's  other  idea,  Wallace  said:  "The  sepa- 
rate existence  of  South  Carolina  is  a  phantom  of  the  brain."  18 

Apparently  this  was  a  common  feeling  among  the  secession- 
ists for  there  was  as  little  attention  paid  to  this  argument  as 
there  was  great  inistence  that  the  secession  party  was  the  true 
cooperation  party.  Yet  even  on  this  point  some  of  the  secession- 
ists wavered.  Congressman  John  McQueen  favored  separate 
secession  before  the  final  adjournment  of  the  state  convention, 19 
and  he  strongly  urged  this  policy  throughout  his  district.  But 
he  admitted  that  there  was  no  good  prospect  that  any  other  state 
would  secede  with  South  Carolina  and  he  thought  that  no  force 
would  be  used  against  the  state  by  the  federal  government  to 
compel  civil  war  and  the  complete  disruption  of  the  Union.  He 
furthermore  admitted  that  secession  would  not  perhaps  at  once 


"Spartan,  Sept.  18,  1851. 

18  Letter  to  Auxiliary  Southern  Eights  Association  of  Charleston, 
Mercury,  Aug.  27,  1851. 

"Letter  of  Aug.  23  in  Spartan,  Sept.  11,  1851;  and  Oct.  1,  in  Winyah 
Observer,  Oct.  15,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  113 

realize  the  "entirely  prosperous  state  of  things  which  might  be 
desired,"  and  he  continued  in  this  rather  discouraging  strain: 
"If  ruin  should  be  our  destiny,  it  is  but  that  which  all  admit 
awaits  us  in  the  Union,  and  we  should  have  the  consolation,  at 
least,  to  know  we  met  it  on  the  highway  of  right  and  honor. ' ' 20 
This  was  hardly  an  attitude  likely  to  convince  many  men  of  the 
desirability  of  separate  secession. 

Other  active  secessionists  were  Maxcy  Gregg  and  Governor 
Means.  The  governor  thought  that  South  Carolina  would  surely 
secede,  and  so  expressed  himself  to  the  militia  of  the  state  which 
he  reviewed  during  the  summer.  The  Southern  Patriot,  which 
did  not  spare  some  of  the  secessionists,  expressed  itself  thus  re- 
garding one  speech  that  the  governor  made:  "His  Excellency 
gave  us  a  war  speech  but  it  was  the  speech  of  a  gentleman. ' ' 21 

The  cooperationists  entered  the  contest  at  a  considerable 
disadvantage.  At  first  they  had  no  newspapers.  This  was  rem- 
edied to  some  extent  as  has  been  shown,  but  throughout  the  cam- 
paign they  were  opposed  by  a  very  great  majority  of  the  news- 
papers of  the  state.  They  lacked  organization,  save  in  a  very  few 
localities,  while  the  secessionists  controlled  most  of  the  Southern 
Rights  Associations.  Furthermore  the  secessionists  controlled 
the  majority  of  the  delegates  to  the  state  convention.  Most  ser- 
ious of  all,  however,  was  the  momentum  of  the  disunion  move- 
ment which  the  leaders  of  the  cooperationists  had  fostered;  there 
was  a  spirit  aroused  in  the  people  which  they  had  worked  to 
raise,  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  and  even  hatred  of  the  Union,  fos- 
tered by  years  of  long  agitation  and  countless  resolutions  pledg- 
ing themselves  and  the  people  to  resistance  "at  all  hazards  and 
to  the  last  extremity."  To  check  the  disunion  movement,  or  at 
least  to  retain  control  of  it  and  direct  it  and  yet  not  counsel 

"  Letter  to  Charleston  Auxiliary  Southern  Bights  Association,  Mercury, 
Aug.  27,  1851. 

"  South  Carolinian,  Sept.  5,  1851. 


114         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

submission  and  the  repudiation  of  all  past  pledges,  was  a  difficult 
undertaking.  Between  state  secession  on  the  one  hand  and  ab- 
ject submission  and  acquiescence  in  the  measures  which  they 
had  indignantly  rejected  on  the  other,  the  cooperationists  had  to 
steer  a  difficult  course. 

The  strength  of  the  cooperationists  was  in  their  leaders  and 
in  the  energy  with  which  they  attacked  separate  secession. 
Cheves,  Barnwell,  Butler,  Memminger,  and  the  other  opponents 
of  the  secessionists,  were  men  well  known  to  the  people.  With 
some  exceptions,  of  whom  Rhett  was  the  chief,  the  secessionists 
were  men  of  no  great  experience  in  public  affairs  and  compara- 
tively unknown  to  the  masses  of  the  people.  Yet  Rhett  was  too 
radical  in  his  opinions  for  some  of  the  secessionists.  Butler  was 
fairly  active  in  the  campaign,  making  occasional  speeches  and 
writing  letters  to  be  read  at  various  cooperation  meetings.  To  a 
less  extent  Barnwell  and  Cheves  did  the  same.  Burt  and  Orr 
were  active  in  their  respective  districts.  But  perhaps  the  most 
active  of  the  cooperationists  was  C.  G.  Memminger  who  con- 
ducted a  campaign  in  a  number  of  districts  comparable  to  the 
campaign  that  Rhett  conducted  for  the  opposing  side.  His 
speeches  in  opposition  to  secession  were  published  and  distrib- 
uted by  the  cooperationists. 

The  secessionists  also  distributed  in  pamphlet  form  the  fiery 
speech  that  Memminger  had  made  at  Pendleton  the  preceding 
October,  a  speech  which  concluded  with  these  words:  "If,  how- 
ever, other  Southern  states  should  refuse  to  meet  with  us,  and  we 
are  brought  to  the  alternative  of  Submission  or  Resistance,  for 
one,  I  say,  let  us  secede  from  the  Union  and  abide  our  fate  for 
better  or  for  worse.  If  we  are  to  wear  chains,  I  prefer  that  they 
should  be  put  on  me  by  force.  I,  at  least,  will  have  no  part  in 
forging  them. " 22 

"  Pamphlet :  ' '  Speech  delivered  by  Col.  C.  G.  Memminger at  the 

Mass  Meeting  in  Pendleton." 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  115 

When  he  was  campaigning  against  secession  in  the  summer 
of  1851  this  speech  and  especially  the  last  paragraph  caused 
Memminger  considerable  embarrassment.  He  explained  that  in 
urging  secession  he  was  unguarded  in  not  including  the  time 
element,  that  he  did  not  mean  that  efforts  at  cooperation  should 
be  given  up  in  one  year,  when  ten  years  had  been  required  to  se- 
cure it  for  the  Revolution.  He  admitted  that  his  words  had  not 
been  carefully  weighed  or  misconstructions  guarded  against,  and 
explained  that  he  was  aroused  by  the  recital  of  the  wrongs  of  the 
South  and  "was  urging  on  the  mountain  population  to  resist  in- 
justice, the  pressure  of  which  was  less  realized  where  few  slaves 
existed. ' '  He  declared  that  the  choice  to  be  made  by  South  Car- 
olina was  between  existence  as  an  independent  nation  or  the 
adoption  of  measures  to  bring  about  the  union  of  the  South.  He 
refuted  the  contention  of  the  secessionists  that  the  state  was 
pledged  to  secession,  declaring  that  all  her  steps  had  been  taken 
only  for  cooperation  in  secession.  He  counseled  cooperation  as 
the  course  that  South  Carolina  should  continue  to  pursue,  and 
urged  that  for  this  course  sufficient  time  should  be  allowed.  First 
there  must  be  secured  concert  of  opinion,  then  concert  in  council, 
and  then  concert  in  action.  By  pursuing  this  course  he  believed 
that  the  South  would  obtain  the  protection  of  her  rights  in  the 
Union  or  stand  alone  as  a  Southern  Confederacy.  He  assured 
his  hearers  that  such  a  confederacy  would  eventually  be 
formed. 23 

Memminger  was  no  more  definite  in  his  proposals  when  he 
advocated  cooperation  than  the  other  leaders  of  his  faction.  Ac- 
cused by  the  secessionists  of  being  no  better  than  abject  submis- 
sionists  and  challenged  to  state  how  they  would  secure  the  coop- 

** Pamphlet:  "Southern  Bights  and  Co-operation  Documents,  No.  7. 
Speech  of  Mr.  Memminger  at  a  public  meeting  of  the  friends  of  co-opera- 
tion in  the  cause  of  Southern  Rights,  held  in  Charleston,  September  23, 

1851 "     Eeprinted  in  full  in  Henry  D.  Capers,  Life  and  Times  of 

C.  G.  Memminger,  204-222. 


116         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

eration  they  advocated,  the  most  effective  reply  of  the  coopera- 
tionists  was  to  attack  the  policy  of  separate  secession.  The  seces- 
sionists argued  that  the  carrying  out  of  their  policy  would  result 
either  in  coercion  by  the  federal  government  and  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  other  Southern  states  in  resisting  coercion,  thus  ef- 
fectively destroying  the  Union,  or  in  the  peaceful  existence  of 
South  Carolina  as  a  very  prosperous  and  independent  state,  an 
example  to  the  other  slave  states  of  the  beneficial  results  of  a 
separation  from  the  oppressive  Union.  They  placed  the  greater 
emphasis  of  their  arguments,  however,  on  the  prospective  coop- 
eration to  follow  secession. 

The  co-operationists,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  se- 
cession would  not  bring  the  South  to  the  aid  of  the  state,  and 
they  centered  their  attack  upon  the  idea  of  the  separate  exist- 
ence of  South  Carolina  as  an  independent  nation.  Some  argued 
as  did  Senator  Butler  that  coercion  would  not  be  attempted  by 
the  federal  government  in  a  form  which  would  bring  the  other 
Southern  states  to  the  aid  of  South  Carolina.  Others  agreed 
with  Barnwell  that  coercion  would  be  applied,  that  no  other  state 
would  even  then  give  her  sympathy  or  aid,  and  that  the  result 
would  be  the  complete  defeat  and  humiliation  of  the  state.  All 
agreed  that  independent  existence  for  South  Carolina  would 
mean  only  increased  burdens  of  taxation  and  the  ruin  of  all 
classes  of  the  population. 2*  Great  stress  was  laid  on  the  conten- 
tion that  the  cause  for  which  South  Carolina  stood  was  not  her 
cause  alone  but  the  cause  of  the  whole  South,  that  she  should  not 
separate  herself  from  her  sister  states  whose  interests  were  iden- 
tical with  hers,  but  that  she  should  be  content  to  wait  and  act 


"*FOT   the   argument   on   both   sides    of  this   question  see   pamphlets: 

"Separate  State  Secession,  Practically  Discussed by  Rutledge, "  and 

"Southern  Rights  and  Co-operation  Documents.     The  'Eutledge'  Pamphlet 

Reviewed "     Rhett's   speeches  contain   the   most  extravagant  ass«r- 

tions  as  to  the  benefits  to  South  Carolina  of  independent  nationality. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  117 

with  them  when  they  should  come  to  the  advanced  positions  that 
she  held. 

One  further  aspect  of  the  campaign  of  the  summer  of  1851 
remains  to  be  considered.  Memminger,  when  he  explained  his 
Pendleton  speech  as  an  effort  to  arouse  the  non-slaveholders,  indi- 
cated the  comparative  indifference  with  which  that  element  of 
the  population  viewed  the  question  of  resistance  to  measures  an- 
tagonistic to  the  slave  interests.  The  expressors  and  the  mould- 
ers of  public  opinion  who  have  left  a  record  of  their  attitude 
were  salveholders  or  closely  allied  in  interest  to  that  class.  To  a 
very  great  extent  those  who  had  no  personal  interest  in  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  were  inarticulate.  They  had  no  means  of  ef- 
fectually voicing  their  opinions  or  their  prejudices.  They  pos- 
sessed the  right  to  vote,  but  they  had  no  leaders,  and  the  nature 
of  the  organization  of  the  state  government,  the  centralization  of 
authority  in  the  legislature,  the  absence  of  rival  parties  to  bid 
for  their  support,  mitigated  against  the  political  expression  of 
their  class  interests.  The  extent  of  their  class  consciousness 
would  be  difficult  to  determine,  though  there  is  some  evidence  of 
a  tendency  towards  that  feeling  of  hostility  towards  slavery  and 
the  slave  owning  class  which  found  expression  in  1857  in  Help- 
er 's  Impending  Crisis.  During  the  summer  of  1849  great  excite- 
ment had  been  created  in  the  state  by  the  circulation  of  pamph- 
lets and  letters  calculated  to  arouse  the  non-slaveholding  class 
and  purporting  to  be  written  by  South  Carolinians.  The  news- 
papers violently  condemned  the  authors  of  this  activity  as  ' '  that 
hellish  crew  who  seek  to  break  down  the  constitution  of  our  state, 
and  destroy  the  barriers  which  protect  the  rights  of  the  poor 
white  man,  and  keep  alive  in  him  the  spirit  and  independence  of 
a  freeman. ' ' 25  From  the  small  amount  of  these  writings  which 
got  into  the  papers,  the  following  portion  of  an  intercepted  letter 

"Pendleton  Messenger  quoted  in  Spartan,  July  12,  1849. 


118         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

signed  "Brutus"  and  dated  at  Edgefield,  July  10,  1849,  may  be 
quoted:  "We  have  formed  an  association,  for  the  purpose  of 
comprehending  in  it  all  the  non-slaveholders  we  can  confide  in, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  producing  such  a  change  in  public  senti- 
ment, as  to  promote  our  interests  against  the  oppressions  of  the 
slaveholding  power. ' ' 26 

In  the  campaign  of  the  summer  of  1851  the  character  of  the 
appeal  made  by  the  secessionists  to  the  non-slaveholders  did  not 
differ  greatly  from  that  made  during  the  preceding  years  of  agi- 
tation against  the  Wilmot  Proviso  and  the  abolition  movement. 
That  appeal  to  passion  has  already  been  discussed.  On  the  other 
hand  there  is  evidence  to  indicate  that  some  of  those  opposed  to 
secession  did  not  scruple  to  appeal  to  the  prejudice  of  the  non- 
slaveholder  against  the  slaveholder.  One  newspaper  editor  thus 
commented  on  the  policy  of  the  cooperationists :  "  In  some  of  the 
upper  districts,  the  abolition  argument  is  resorted  to  by  the  so- 
called  cooperation  party.  They  state  that  the  excitement  is  got 
up  by  the  slaveholders  of  South  Carolina  for  the  preservation  of 
their  property,  and  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  poor  man  sac- 
rifice his  life  on  the  field  of  battle,  while  the  slaveholder  is  living 
in  ease  and  luxury  at  home.  We  make  no  comments  on  these  sen- 
timents. We  simply  say,  the  principles  are  infernal,  and  the  doc- 
trine is  the  doctrine  of  devils. ' ' 27  Some  idea  also  of  the  appeal  to 
the  non-slaveholders  made  by  the  opponents  of  secession,  as  well 
as  that  made  by  the  secessionists,  may  be  obtained  from  the  open 
letter  written  by  one  of  the  latter  with  the  nom  de  plume  of 
' '  Candor ' '  and  addressed  ' '  To  the  poor  men  of  Spartanburg  who 
are  not  slaveholders. ' ' 28 

"Why  do  we  hear  the  North  abused  and  the  Union  spoken 
of  as  a  thing  that  once  existed,"  he  asked.  "The  answer  is,  be- 

M  Spartan,  July  19,  1849. 

"Palmetto  Flag  quoted  in  Spartan,  Oct.  16,  1851. 

"Spartan,  Aug.  14,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  119 

cause  of  the  existence  of  Slavery  and  the  deep  rooted  hostility  of 

the  North  to  that  institution Be  ye  not  deceived  ye  honest 

hardworking  poor  man.  I  know  a  number  of  you  think  that  the 
negroes  will  be  freed  and  taken  out  of  the  country,  and  that  then 
the  laboring  poor  man  can  strike  for  any  amount  of  wages  he 
cares  to  exact.  This  I  tell  you  is  a  fallacious  idea,  a  mere  phan- 
tom of  the  brain — no  sirs,  the  North  contemplates  no  such  thing, 
but  the  North  intends  that  we  shall  not  have  any  of  the  advan- 
tages of  extending  our  institutions — that  we  shall  be  penned  up 
with  our  negroes  in  the  Atlantic  States  and  thereby  be  forced  to 
free  our  negroes  by  self  defense  without  an  outlet  and  keep  them 
amongst  us,  or  by  heavy  taxes  transport  them  ourselves,  a  por- 
tion of  which  taxes  you  must  pay — will  you  do  it?  If  not,  we 
will  be  compelled  to  endure  equality  with  them — we  will  be 
forced  to  allow  them  the  same  privileges  we  enjoy — because  they 
will  then  outnumber  us  and  can  make  us  do  just  as  they  please — 
they  would  insist  on  a  right  to  vote  and  send  their  negro  breth- 
ren to  our  State  Legislature  and  to  the  United  States  Congress — 
their  children  would  go  to  school  with  your  children — they  would 
eat  at  your  tables,  sleep  in  your  beds  and  drink  out  of  the  same 
gourd  that  you  do ;  yea,  they  would  do  more  than  this,  they  would 
marry  your  daughters,  in  despite  of  everything  you  could  do, 
and  you  will  be  deeply  humiliated  at  the  thought  that  your 
grand-children,  those  who  shall  inherit  your  name  and  property, 
are  of  mixed  blood." 

"You  are  told,"  the  writer  continued,  "that  your  rights 
are  not  affected,  that  you  have  no  interest  in  Slavery — that  you 
ought  not  to  fight  for  other  men's  property,  the  rich  men's  prop- 
erty   You  certainly  see  that  when  you  take  sides  against 

your  own  country,  your  own  State,  it  must  tend  to  the  ruin  of 
every  man  in  that  state.  They  tell  you  further  (and  the  major- 
ity of  the  non-slaveholders,  we  fear,  in  the  upper  Districts  of 
South  Carolina  harbour  this  idle  phantom)  that,  if  the  slaves  are 


120         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

free,  you  get  more  for  your  labor  than  you  now  get.  This  is  not 
so;  instead  of  increasing  your  wages  it  would  diminish  them 
from  the  present  prices  of  common  labor  which  is  about  eight  or 
ten  dollars  per  month  to  one  or  two  dollars  per  month. ' ' 

Turning  finally  to  the  question  of  separate  secession  by 
South  Carolina,  "Candor"  explained  that  if  such  a  step  were 
taken  by  the  state,  the  other  Southern  states  would  be  bound  to 
sustain  her.  He  urged  the  non-slaveholders  not  to  vote  against 
secession  but  to  trust  the  members  of  the  convention  whom  they 
had  elected  and  the  members  of  the  legislature  who  had 
"thought  it  the  wisest  course  to  hold  this  convention,  in  order 
then  and  there  to  secede."  "It  is  true,"  he  concluded,  "your 
Delegates  may  be  instructed  and  they  are  willing  to  abide  by 
your  decision;  but  you  once  voted  for  them  and  as  they  are  all 
high-minded  honorable  men,  and  true  to  themselves  and  true  to 
you ;  would  it  not  'be  better  to  abide  by  their  decision,  rather  than 
have  agitation  in  our  midst,  when  there  is  so  much  need  of  the 
South  being  united  at  this  time  ?  These  Delegates  are  as  deeply 
interested  in  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  State  as  you 
are  and  it  does  seem  to  my  mind,  if  the  slaveholder  can  stand  a 
dismemberment  of  the  Union,  the  non-slaveholder  will  not  sus- 
tain much  damage  by  way  of  heavy  taxes  from  the  State. ' ' 

It  was  the  contention  of  the  cooperationists,  repeatedly  as- 
serted, that  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  state  convention  had 
taken  place  the  preceding  February  on  such  short  notice  and 
with  so  little  explanation  of  its  object  that  less  than  half  of  the 
people  had  participated.  They  admitted  that  that  election  had 
given  control  of  the  convention  to  the  separate  secessionists,  but 
they  denied  that  the  majority  in  the  convention  represented  the 
will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  state,  and  they  urged 
that  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  Southern  Congress  furnished 
an  opportunity  for  a  fuller  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people 
on  the  question  of  separate  secession,  and  they  declared  that  the 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  121 

election  of  delegates  opposed  to  separate  secession  would  furnish 
a  manifestation  of  the  will  of  the  people  which  the  convention 
must  heed. 29  Even  Perry  admitted  that  a  majority  in  favor  of 
delegates  to  the  Southern  Congress  who  favored  secession  would 
mean  secession  by  South  Carolina  alone  from  the  Union. so  The 
secessionists  on  their  part  accepted  the  coming  election  as  the 
test  of  strength  between  the  two  parties. 31  The  days  set  by  the 
legislature  for  the  election  were  October  13  and  14,  1851.  Dur- 
ing September  both  parties  nominated  their  candidates  in  each 
congressional  district,  and  conducted  a  vigorous  campaign  up  to 
the  very  eve  of  the  election.  Of  the  candidates  nominated  by 
the  secessionists  the  best  known  were  Daniel  Wallace,  F.  W. 
Pickens,  and  R.  Barnwell  Rhett;  by  the  cooperationists,  James 
L.  Orr,  James  Chesnut,  Jr.,  and  Congressman-elect  William 
Aiken. 

No  one  expected  that  the  Southern  Congress  proposed  by 
the  Nashville  Convention  and  the  South  Carolina  legislature 
would  meet.  The  results  of  the  elections  occurring  during  the 
summer  of  1851  in  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  Mississippi  indicated 
clearly  the  acquiescence  of  the  people  of  the  South  everywhere 
except  in  South  Carolina  in  the  finality  of  the  Clay  compromise 
measures.  In  Alabama  the  election  of  members  of  Congress 
which  took  place  in  August  resulted  in  a  victory  for  the  Union- 
ists by  a  majority  of  more  than  6,000.  Early  in  September  the 
people  of  Mississippi  chose  Unionists  from  forty-one  of  the  fifty- 
nine  counties  as  delegates  to  the  state  convention.  The  total 


"Southern  Patriot,  Aug.  29,  1851;  Evening  News,  Oct.  11,  1851;  Ad- 
dress to  Voters  by  Convention  of  Southern  Eights  and  Co-operation  Party 
of  the  Fourth  District,  Sept.  8th  in  Courier,  Sept.  17,  1851:  Address  to 
Voters  of  Charleston  District  by  Co-operation  Meeting,  Sept.  23d,  in  Mer- 
cury, Sept.  24,  1851. 

10  Southern  Patriot,  Oct.  2,  1851. 

11  South   Carolinian,   Aug.    23;    Winyah   Observer,    Sept.    3;    Mercury, 
Sept.  9,  1851. 


122         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

vote  indicated  a  majority  of  more  than  7,000  for  the  Unionists. 
On  October  7th  the  people  of  Georgia  elected  Howell  Cobb  gov- 
ernor by  a  majority  of  almost  19,000  votes,  and  thereby  affirmed 
the  platform  adopted  by  their  convention  of  the  preceding  De- 
cember. 3a 

It  was  to  Mississippi  that  the  disunionists  of  South  Carolina 
had  looked  most  hopefully  for  aid  and  comfort.  The  result  of 
the  election  in  that  state  was  accepted  by  both  factions  in  South 
Carolina  as  proof  of  the  validity  of  their  views  on  the  action  that 
South  Carolina  should  take.  The  Mercury  declared  that  it  ex- 
tinguished the  last  hope  of  cooperation  unless  the  state  chose  ' '  to 
cooperate  in  submission. ' ' 33  One  of  the  organs  of  the  coopera- 
tionists  viewed  the  Mississippi  election  as  a  sure  indication  of 
Southern  sentiment  as  to  secession,  and  declared  that  as  each 
election  took  place  in  the  South,  the  evidence  became  more  and 
more  cumulative  against  the  separate-actionists  of  South  Caro- 
lina. 34  Though  some  of  the  cooperationists  continued  to  claim 
that  the  issue  was  ' '  Separate  State  Secession  or  a  Southern  Con- 
federacy, ' ' 35  the  South  Carolinian  expressed  the  true  issue  when 
it  declared  that  the  question  had  narrowed  down  to  that  of  re- 
sistance to  past  wrongs,  and  that  the  only  choice  left  to  the  state 
was  either  to  cooperate  with  Virginia,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi  in  submission,  or  to  secede  alone. 36  This  was  the 
choice  to  be  made  by  the  voters  of  South  Carolina  when  they 
went  thru  the  form  of  choosing  delegates  to  a  Southern  congress 
that  would  never  meet. 

Hammond  had  taken  no  part  in  the  campaign  but  he  was 

"Besults  of  the  elections  given  in  Harper's  Monthly  Magazine,  III, 
557,  694,  840;  IV,  120. 

"Sept.  10,  1851. 

"Evening  News,  Sept.  10,  1851. 

36  Convention  of  Co-operationists  of  Fourth  District,  Address  to  the 
voters,  in  Courier,  Sept.  17,  1851. 

18  Sept.  24,  Oct.  13,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  123 

bitter  enough  against  the  secessionists  whom  he  characterized  as 
"the  insane  instruments — 'bent  upon  butchering  in  their  way  the 
glorious  common  cause."  He  was  even  inclined  to  think  that  it 
might  be  well  for  the  secessionists  to  carry  South  Carolina  out  of 
the  Union,  it  being  perhaps  indispensible  for  the  peace  and  wel- 
fare of  the  country  that  the  state  have  her  comb  cut.  Regarding 
his  opnion  as  to  the  expected  results  of  the  election  in  South 
Carolina,  he  wrote:  "I  apprehend  that  the  Secessionists  will 
carry  the  State  by  a  large  majority  on  Monday.  They  are  well 
organized  and  much  excited  and  will  attend  the  polls  while  half 
of  those  who  would  be  cooperationists  if  they  were  anything,  are 

afraid  even  to  vote  lest  they  get  into  trouble  some  way The 

other  side  have  the  topics  and  will  beat  them  on  the  stump  with 
the  mobs."" 

The  election  resulted  in  a  decided  victory  for  the  coopera- 
tionists who  elected  their  candidates  in  six  of  the  seven  Con- 
gressional districts.  They  secured  a  majority  of  the  votes  in 
twenty-five  of  the  forty-four  assembly  districts,  and  they  cast  a 
total  vote  in  the  state  of  25,045  to  their  opponents'  17,710.  The 
distribution  of  the  vote  for  and  against  separate  secession  is 
significant.  The  only  Congressional  district  carried  by  the  se- 
cessionists was  the  seventh,  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  the 
state,  the  district  which  Rhett  had  formerly  represented  in  Con- 
gress. Charleston  voted  2454  for  and  1018  against  the  coopera- 
tionists, a  total  said  to  be  the  greatest  ever  cast  in  that  city.  The 
secessionists  carried  all  but  three  of  the  low-country  parishes. 
In  the  up-country  they  carried  only  three  districts,  Laurens, 
Fairfield,  and  Union,  the  home  of  Daniel  Wallace.  Another 
basis  of  comparison  may  well  be  used  than  the  geographical  one. 
Including  Charleston  as  one,  there  were  in  South  Carolina  only 
ten  districts  in  which  the  majority  of  the  population  was  white. 

"Hammond  to  W.  G.  Simms,  Oct.  11,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 


124         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

The  cooperationists  carried  all  of  these,  and  carried  eight  of  them 
by  a  majority  of  more  than  two  to  one.  There  were  fifteen  par- 
ishes in  whch  the  negroes  composed  from  74  to  94  per  cent  of 
the  population.  The  secessionists  carried  all  but  two  of  these, 
and  carried  them  by  large  majorities. 38 

The  foregoing  analysis  of  the  vote  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
non-slaveholders  formed  one  of  the  large  elements  in  the  vote 
against  secession.  At  least  one  manifestation  of  their  attitude 
on  the  election  days  got  into  the  papers.  It  was  reported  that 
near  Cheraw  in  Chesterfield  District  thirty  or  forty  men  marched 
together  to  the  polls  applauding  their  leader  who  shouted, ' '  Damn 
the  negroes  and  their  masters."  This  incident,  said  the  editor 
who  narrated  it,  was  sufficient  to  show  the  feeling  already  dif- 
fused into  a  portion  of  the  people.  Such  individuals,  he  said, 
were  to  be  found  in  every  community. 39  The  same  editor  also 
gave  one  of  the  very  few  contemporary  analyses  of  the  elements 
making  up  the  cooperation  party.  "They  have  triumphed,"  he 
wrote  in  the  bitterness  of  defeat,  "but  they  have  succeeded  in 
instilling  into  the  minds  of  a  portion  of  our  population  senti- 
ments at  war  with  our  domestic  institutions  and  dangerous  to 
our  future  peace.  The  spirit  of  war  upon  slavery  has  been  in- 
voked to  fill  up  their  ranks We  have  among  us  idolizers 

of  the  Union — men  who  think  it  treason  to  talk  of  resistance 
to  the  federal  government;  we  have  among  us  gambling  politi- 
cians who  would  barter  away  their  very  souls  for  profit  or  place ; 
gentlemen  of  elegant  leisure  whose  voluptuous  dreams  and  sybar- 
itic ease  must  not  be  broken  or  disturbed  by  clamors  for  independ- 
ence ;  gentlemen  whose  hearts  and  possessions  are  in  other  States 
to  be  endangered  by  the  secession  of  South  Carolina;  and  last 


88  Vote  given  in  Mercury,  Oct.  29 ;  Southern  Patriot,  Nov.  6 ;  South  Car- 
olinian, Oct.  25,  1851. 

"Black  River  Watchman  (Sumterville),  Nov.  22,  1851. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OP  1851  125 

but  not  least,  we  have  among  us  a  class  who  look  with  envy  and 
dislike  upon  all  who  are  so  fortunate  as  to  own  a  slave  and  who 
will  never  under  any  circumstances  lend  their  support  for  its 
maintenance. ' '  *° 

The  results  of  the  election  were  well  summarized  by  Peti- 
gru  in  a  letter  to  Daniel  Webster:  "On  the  13th  we  had  an 
election  which  turned  upon  secession  or  no  secession,  and  the  se- 
cession or  revolution  party  has  been  beaten  upwards  of  7,000 
votes.  But  it  would  be  far  too  much  to  set  this  down  as  a  union 
victory.  The  opposition  to  disunion  has  been  made  under  cover 
of  the  same  principles  that  the  secession  party  professes.  The 

manifestoes  of  both  parties  are  the  same  in  the  main But 

the  no  secession  party  were  joined  by  all  the  Union  men,  or  near- 
ly so ;  the  rest  refusing  to  vote.  And  the  practical  effect  of  their 
endeavors  is  to  put  down  the  agitation,  tho  they  pretend  that  it 
is  their  intention  to  agitate  disunion  until  all  the  South  is  of 
their  party.  They  are  blind  or  pretend  to  be  blind  to  the  evi- 
dence that  the  South  does  not  join  them  because  they  are  wrong. 

These  are  the  cooperationists  who  with  the  union  men  have 

taken  the  state  from  Rhett  and  broken  as  I  think  the  spell  that 
Mr.  Calhoun  left,"  Petigru  expressed  the  belief  that,  public 
opinion  being  so  decidedly  pronounced  against  a  direct  attempt 
at  disunion,  it  was  doubtful  whether  the  state  convention  would 
ever  meet.  He  concluded,  "May  such  be  the  end  of  such  ma- 
chinations now  and  forever. ' ' 41 


Ibid.,  Oct.  18,  1851. 

Petigru  to  Webster,  Oct.  22,  1851,  Webster  MSS. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  STATE  CONVENTION 

The  victory  of  the  cooperationists  in  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  Southern  congress  was  acknowledged  by  all  parties  to  have 
settled  the  question  of  secession  for  the  time  being.  The  South- 
ern Standard  declared  that  the  election  expressed  the  will  of  the 
people  of  South  Carolina  ' '  opposed  not  only  to  immediate  seces- 
sion, but  to  secession  immediate  or  remote,  unlesss  with  the  pre- 
viously ascertained  cooperation  of  the  other  Southern  States. ' '  * 
The  secession  papers  at  first  accepted  the  result  as  a  Waterloo 
for  their  policy,  placing  South  Carolina  on  the  Georgia  platform 
of  submission  without  Georgia's  pledges  of  resistance  to  future 
aggression. 2  One  secession  editor  thus  viewed  the  result  of  the 
election  as  determining  the  submission  of  South  Carolina  to  the 
federal  government:  "All  the  blustering  and  vaporing,  and  'all 
hazard  and  to  the  last  extremity '  resolutions  were  idle  boastings. 

Messrs.  Butler,  Barnwell  and  Cheves  have  destroyed  the 

armed  men  which  were  about  to  rise  from  the  dragon's  teeth 
sowed  by  themselves."3  Most  of  the  secession  papers,  however, 
including  those  which  had  at  first  viewed  the  election  as  deter- 
mining the  final  submission  of  South  Carolina,  began  to  insist 
that  the  cooperationists  now  come  forward  with  some  definite 
proposition  to  which  all  but  the  Unionists  and  abject  submis- 
sionists  could  give  their  support. 4  The  Mercury  denied  that  as 
between  resistance  and  submission  the  election  had  decided  any- 

1  Nov.  8,  quoted  in  South  Carolinian,  Nov.  12,  1851. 

*  Black  River  Watchman,  Oct.  18,  1851;  Spartan,  Oct.  23,  1851. 

*  Winyali  Observer,  Oct.  22,  1851. 

4  Ibid.,  Oct.  29;  Black  River  Watchman,  Nov.  8,  29;  Mercury,  Nov.  8; 
South  Carolinian,  Nov.  7;  Greenville  Mountaineer  quoted  in  Mercury,  Nov. 
1,  1851. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  127 

thing,  and  declared  that  the  convention  would  devise  some  ef- 
fectual and  decisive  plan  of  resistance. 5 

This  demand  from  the  secession  papers  that  the  coopera- 
tionists  take  some  steps  towards  the  redemption  of  their  disunion 
pledge  was  the  policy  determined  upon  by  the  Central  Commit- 
tee of  the  Southern  Rights  Association  of  the  State  of  South  Car- 
olina. This  committee  met  in  Columbia  soon  after  the  election 
and  under  the  date  of  Oct.  24,  1851,  issued  a  circular  "For  Con- 
fidential circulation  among  the  members  of  the  Secession  Par- 
ty." 6  In  this  they  reviewed  the  election  and  attributed 
their  defeat  to  the  combined  opposition  of  two  parties:  the  first 
and  much  the  smaller  in  number  and  hitherto  in  power  was  the 
Union  party,  the  object  of  which  was  adherence  to  the  Union  at 
the  expense  of  whatever  submission  and  degradation  might  be  re 
quired ;  the  second,  larger  and  more  powerful,  was  composed  of 
disunion  men  who  desired  resistance  but  regarded  the  coopera- 
tion of  other  states  as  indispensable  or  of  such  paramount  im- 
portance as  not  to  justify  the  immediate  separate  action  of  South 
Carolina.  Between  these  two  parties,  the  secessionists  explained, 
there  was  a  third  class  which,  though  professing  the  principles 
of  the  latter  party,  was  really  desirous  of  defeating  all  resist- 
ance to  past  wrongs.  They  feared  that  this  class  might  at  any 
moment  bring  a  sudden  and  great  accession  of  power  to  the  hith- 
erto comparatively  insignificant  Union  party,  to  whose  benefit 
the  success  of  the  coalition  had  so  far  inured.  The  secession 
party,  they  asserted,  was  much  stronger  than  either  of  the  oppos 
ing  parties  taken  separately.  ' '  It  would  have  been  much  stronger 
than  the  coalition,"  they  explained,  "but  for  the  effect  upon 
large  masses  of  voters,  of  an  ignominious  panic.  Throughout  the 
State,  with  every  appearance  of  systematic  operation,  alarms 
and  falsehoods  were  covertly  disseminated  among  the  more  igno- 

•Oct.  18,  1851. 

•Printed  in  Southern  Patriot,  Jan.  8,  1852. 


128         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

rant  class.  They  were  told  that  if  they  joined  the  Secession  par- 
ty, or  attended  meetings  of  that  party,  they  would  forthwith  be 
drafted  for  military  service.  They  were  told  that  they  would 
be  taxed  beyond  their  ability  to  pay.  Non-slaveholders  were 
told  that  they  have  no  interest  in  the  question  of  slavery — and 
that  all  the  horrors  and  sufferings  of  war  would  be  brought  upon 

them,  for  the  exclusive  advantage  of  their  richer  neighbors 

A  sufficient  number  of  voters  were  thus  controlled  to  reduce  the 
party  of  action  from  a  great  majority to  a  minority." 

The  circular  then  outlined  the  policy  to  be  pursued  by  the 
secessionists.  Though  preserving  its  organization  that  party 
should  make  no  demonstration,  but  should  attempt  to  draw  a 
demonstration  from  the  resistance  wing  of  the  opposition.  The 
Central  Committee  urged  the  propriety  of  efforts  through  private 
conversations  and  through  the  press  to  arouse  a  sense  of  respon- 
sibility among  the  true  resistance  men  who  opposed  secession, 
to  induce  them  to  declare  what  they  proposed  to  do  to  prove 
their  sincerity  and  to  redeem  the  honor  of  the  state.  Thus  the 
secessionists  hoped  to  separate  the  true  resistance  men  among 
the  cooperationists  from  the  submissionists  before  it  should  be- 
come too  late.  The  Central  Committee  expressed  a  willingness  to 
support  any  measure  holding  out  hope  of  effectual  resistance  or 
leading  to  secession  which  the  cooperationists  might  propose. 
"Submission,"  it  said,  "is  not  yet  to  be  contemplated  as  our 
inevitable  destiny."  In  conformity  with  the  policy  of  ceasing 
to  agitate  the  remedy  of  secession  and  of  placing  upon  the  vic- 
torious cooperationists  the  burden  of  devising  the  measures  for 
resistance,  the  Central  Committee  decided  to  postpone  the  semi- 
annual meeting  of  the  Central  Southern  Rights  Association  and 
await  the  fulfilment  of  their  policy. 

James  H.  Hammond,  though  opposed  to  secession  and  ap- 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  129 

pealed  to  by  the  cooperationists  to  speak  out, 7  had  taken  no  act- 
ive part  in  the  bitter  campaign  which  closed  with  the  election  in 
October.  During  the  summer  he  sulked  in  retirement,  bitterly 
hostile  to  Rhett  and  sincerely  opposed  to  secession,  but  fearful 
that  the  only  result  of  the  factional  fight  in  progress  would  be 
a  ' '  degrading  submission under  some  absurd  form  of  blus- 
ter. ' ' 8  He  had  drawn  up,  however,  and  had  published  anony- 
mously in  the  Mercury  a  ' '  Plan  of  State  Action, ' ' 9  the  professed 
purpose  of  which  was  asserted  to  be  to  furnish  a  ' '  plan  of  action 
short  of  actual  secession  yet  decidedly  in  advance  of  any  step 
taken  by  this  or  any  other  State  in  our  controversy  with  the  Fed- 
eral Government — or  rather  with  the  People  of  the  North." 

The  plan  was  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  an  ordinance  and  had 
been  sent  to  his  friend  A.  P.  Aldrich  for  introduction  into  the 
convention  when  that  body  should  meet.  It  was  a  lengthy  docu- 
ment of  nine  articles.  It  began  with  a  defense  of  slavery,  and  it 
asserted  that  as  the  non-slaveholding  states  had  used  their  con- 
trol of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  impose  high  im- 
port duties  and  to  arrest  the  extension  of  slavery  for  the  purpose 
of  hastening  its  abolition,  and  as  there  was  no  prospect  of  any 
change,  "it  follows  that  the  existing  Union  of  the  non-slavehold- 
ing States  and  the  slaveholding  States  of  North  America,  is  and 
ever  will  be  wholly  incompatible  with  the  free  development  of 
the  natural  advantages  of  the  latter  States,  and  their  attainment 
to  that  position  of  power,  prosperity  and  happiness  to  which 
they  are  justly  entitled."  The  ordinance  then  asserted  that 
South  Carolina  therefore  desired  the  dissolution  of  the  Union 
and  the  formation  of  a  Southern  confederacy,  and  only  refrained 
from  withdrawing  from  the  Union  because  she  was  convinced 

7  A.  P.  Aldrieh  to  Hammond,  May  16,  20,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 
"Hammond  to  Simms,  July  1,  1851,  ibid. 

•Broadside  in  Hammond  MSB.,  v.  XVIII;  see  also  Hammond  to 
Simms,  ibid. 


130         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

that  no  other  states  would  join  her  and  because  she  did  not  con- 
sider herself  able  to  maintain  alone  a  dignified,  even  if  a  peace- 
ful, independence.  It  then  declared  that  the  time  would  soon 
come  when  other  states  would  join  South  Carolina,  and  that  in 
the  meantime  there  could  -be  no  utility  in  maintaining  those  re- 
lations with  the  federal  government  which  could  be  dissolved 
without  a  conflict.  To  this  end  the  ordinance  proposed  the 
following  fundamental  laws  to  be  ordained  by  the  convention: 
that  South  Carolina  appoint  no  presidential  electors,  send  no 
representatives  or  senators  to  Congress,  accept  no  appropriations 
from  the  federal  government,  and  allow  none  of  its  citizens  to 
hold  any  but  local  civil  offices  in  the  state  under  the  federal  gov- 
ernment ;  that  the  legislature  impose  a  double  tax  on  property  in 
South  Carolina  owned  by  those  who  should  reside  exceeding  one 
month  of  each  year  in  any  non-slaveholding  state  or  states,  and 
in  so  far  as  constitutional  impose  a  tax  upon  all  products  of  the 
non-slaveholding  states  imported  into  South  Carolina ;  and  final- 
ly, that  the  legislature  encourage  manufacturing,  internal  im- 
provements, agriculture,  and  direct  trade  with  foreign  nations. 
A  note  to  Hammand's  "plan"  explained  that  by  it  a  collision 
with  the  federal  government  would  be  avoided  yet  South  Caro- 
lina be  morally  out  of  the  Union,  and  that  when  Georgia,  Ala- 
bama, Mississippi  and  Florida  should  come  to  her  position  the 
Union  would  be  dissolved  and  a  Southern  confederacy  formed. 
At  the  time  of  its  publication  the  plan  attracted  little  atten- 
tion from  either  party  in  the  state.  With  the  defeat  of  seces- 
sion, however,  some  of  the  members  of  the  state-action  party 
turned  to  it  as  a  possible  program  for  the  state  convention.  One 
secessionist  wrote  of  it:  "Secession  is  dead  and  I  fear  buried 
forever.  I  am  therefore  anxious  to  see  any  plan  which  makes 
a  single  step  towards  disunion."  10  Other  secessionists  sought  by 

"  James  Jones  to  Hammond,  Oct.  26,  1851,  ibid. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  131 

conference  and  by  correspondence  to  induce  Hammond  to  under- 
take the  formation  of  a  new  resistance  party  on  the  basis  of  his 
plan  of  action.  They  turned  to  him,  one  leader  wrote,  because 
they  realized  that  Rhett's  leadership  could  not  give  it  success 
and  because  they  could  not  trust  Butler,  Barnwell,  Preston, 
Chesnut,  Burt  and  Orr.  They  turned  to  Hammond,  he  said, 
because  of  his  popularity  with  the  masses,  his  freedom  from  any 
participation  in  the  partisan  campaign  which  had  just  closed, 
and  because  they  believed  he  could  devise  and  carry  out  some 
feasible  plan  of  action  looking  to  the  withdrawal  from  the  Union 
at  the  earliest  moment  of  South  Carolina  and  the  cotton  states.  u 
Maxcy  Gregg,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  secession  party,  con- 
sidered Hammond's  plan  probably  the  only  practicable  measure 
to  save  South  Carolina  from  hopeless  submission.  He  suggested 
that  Hammond's  friends  "should  agitate  the  question  at  once, 
and  commence  the  contest  with  those  of  their  Party  who  refuse 
to  join  them  in  proposing  it  to  the  Secessionists  as  a  middle 
ground  to  unite  upon,"  and  he  appealed  to  Hammond  to  come 
forward  as  a  leader  of  the  truest,  the  staunchest,  the  most  Caro- 
linian party  that  had  ever  existed  in  the  state. 12  From  Charles- 
ton it  was  reported  that  the  secessionists,  defeated  in  their  favor- 
ite scheme,  were  willing  to  fall  back  to  the  next  line  to  their 
own,  for  which  Hammond 's  plan  should  form  the  basis.  ' '  If  we 
find  it  formed,"  wrote  a  member  of  the  convention,  "we  shall 
certainly  fall  in  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  those  that  are  there 
and  battle  with  honest  zeal.  It  is  the  only  one  that  presents 
itself  short  of  secession,  that  can  save  the  State  from  hopeless 
disgrace.  Though  slow,  it  is  sure  progress  towards  the  ultimate 
object  and  affords  an  opportunity  to  those  who  have  vengeance 
to  gratify,  to  enjoy  the  mortification  of  the  submission  men  and 
the  trading  politicians  who  have  brought  up  the  State  to  its 

11  John  Cunningham  to  Hammond,  Nov.  10,  1851,  ibid. 
a  Maxcy  Gregg  to  Hammond,  Nov.  14,  1851,  ibid. 


132         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

present  position  and  then  joined  the  opposition  from  personal 
considerations — '  set  the  woods  on  fire  and  then  run  away. '  "  13 

Whether  these  overtures  were  sincere  or  not,  Hammond  was 
convinced  that  the  secessionists  were  generally  anxious  to  fall 
back  on  his  plan,  but  wanted  it  pushed  on  them  as  a  cooperation 
measure.  As  to  whether  or  not  the  cooperationists  could  be  in- 
duced to  accept  it,  he  was  doubtful.  He  realized  that  the  co- 
operation party,  whose  sole  bond  of  union  was  opposition  to 
secession,  could  hardly  move  without  breaking  to  pieces:  "Like 
a  crowd  collected  to  put  out  a  fire,  it  must  necessarily  disperse 
as  soon  as  the  flames  are  got  under."  He  was  fearful  not  only 
that  the  "Union  submission  wing"  of  that  party  would  convert 
the  whole  to  submission,  but  that  the  resistance  party  in  the 
other  states,  cut  to  pieces  by  Union  victories  everywhere,  would 
be  utterly  extinguished  unless  South  Carolina  should  make  some 
forward  movement  and  plant  there  as  a  rallying  point  the  flag 
of  resistance  and  disunion. 14 

Hammond  and  Aldrich  conferred  together  and  decided  upon 
some  modifications  of  the  plan.  These  involved  the  striking  out 
of  all  reference  to  a  Southern  confederacy,  and  the  incorporation 
of  provisions  for  the  creation  of  a  council  of  safety  to  advise 
with  the  authorities  of  the  other  states  and  with  the  South  Caro- 
lina legislature  regarding  the  federal  relations  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  states,  and  for  giving  to  the  legislature  the  power  to  declare 
South  Carolina  no  longer  a  member  of  the  Union  as  soon  as  one 
or  more  of  the  slaveholding  states  should  declare  a  readiness  to 
withdraw  from  the  Union.  The  most  significant  change  was  the 
incorporation  of  a  clause  expressing  a  willingness  to  make  one 
more  effort  to  preserve  the  Union,  proposing  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  whereby  each  section  should  elect  -a  president. 

"James  Jones  to  Hammond,  Nov.  16,  1851,  ibid. 

"Hammond  to  John  Cunningham,  Nov.  14,  1851;  Hammond  to  Simms, 
Nov.  21,  1851,  ibid. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  133 

and  providing  that  the  South  Carolina  legislature  should  not  put 
the  ordinance  into  effect  until  sufficient  time  had  been  given  for 
the  acceptance  of  the  proposed  amendment. 15 

The  idea  of  thus  proposing  "Calhoun's  amendment,"  was 
soon  dropped  on  the  ground  that  it  should  not  be  a  South  Caro- 
lina movement,  much  to  the  relief  of  Aldrich  who  thus  expressed 
himself  regarding  it:  "I  am  and  have  always  been  a  disunion 
man.  I  do  not  believe  that  anything  the  South  or  North  can  do, 
can  save  the  Union  and  I  would  not  like  to  contribute  anything 
towards  saving  it  if  I  could.  Yet  for  the  sake  of  effecting  the 
union  of  the  South  I  have  forced  myself  to  say,  that  I  would  lend 
my  aid  in  carrying  out  a  scheme  to  prevent  disunion. ' ' 18 

The  secessionists  took  a  more  favorable  attitude  towards  the 
plan  of  state  action  than  did  the  cooperationists.  Both  Hammond 
and  Aldrich  wrote  to  the  Charleston  leaders  of  the  latter  party 
but  got  little  encouragement  for  the  plan.  Hayne  thought  that 
to  urge  it  would  only  produce  new  distractions,  and  that  no  very 
decisive  step  should  be  taken.  "The  occasion  has  been  lost,"  he 
said,  ' '  and  cannot  be  recovered. ' ' 17  Barnwell  found  the  situa- 
tion of  the  cooperationists  as  a  party  very  embarrassing.  He 
believed  that  no  step  looking  to  separate  secession  should  be 
taken,  but  he  recommended  a  speedy  reconciliation  with  the  se- 
cessionists in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  Unionists.  The  Standard 
took  ground  against  the  "plan,''  and  the  Mercury  fought  shy  of 
it.  Aldrich,  however,  for  the  time  being  at  least,  believed  that  a 
resistance  party  that  would  still  maintain  South  Carolina  in  a 
position  of  defiance  could  be  formed  from  the  secession  party 
and  the  resistance  men  among  the  cooperationists.  He  emphat- 
ically declared,  however,  that  he  would  never  act  with  a  party 

"A.  P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Nov.  8,  1851;  draft  of  proposed  changes. 
Hammond  MSS. 

M  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Nov.  11,  1851,  ibid. 
"I.  W.  Hayne  to  Hammond,  Nov.  9,  1851,  ibid. 


134         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

with  Rhett  as  its  leader  and  the  Mercury  as  its  exponent.  "If 
Rhett  takes  any  part  in  a  movement, ' '  he  wrote,  "  it  is  half  dead 
the  moment  he  touches  it  and  whole  dead  when  he  embraces  it. 
If  the  Mercury  supports  a  measure  it  is  suspected  from  one  end 
of  the  South  to  the  other  and  we  must  get  rid  of  both. ' ' 18 

The  position  of  the  cooperation  party  was  embarassing,  as 
Barnwell  said.  It  had  recently  defeated  the  secessionists,  but  it 
possessed  only  a  minority  of  the  members  of  both  the  legislature 
and  the  state  convention.  It  had  defeated  the  secessionists  on 
the  professed  platform  of  cooperative  disunion  and  the  secession- 
ists were  demanding  what  steps  would  be  taken  by  the  victors  to 
carry  out  their  pledges.  Early  in  November  some  of  the  leaders 
of  the  cooperationists  held  a  caucus  in  Charleston  to  determine 
upon  their  policy,  but  came  to  no  decision,  save  to  meet  again 
during  the  session  of  the  legislature. 19 

On  November  25th  the  caucus  of  cooperationists  from  all 
sections  of  the  state  met  in  Columbia.  The  confidential  circular 
which  the  secessionists  had  sent  out  late  in  October  was  read  and 
created  much  excitement  and  a  great  distrust  of  Gregg  and  other 
secession  leaders.  It  rendered  hopeless  the  idea  which  Aldrich 
and  some  cooperationists  had  held  that  the  secessionists  were  in 
earnest  in  taking  up  any  plan  proposed  by  their  opponents  and 
acting  with  them  under  their  organization.  The  cooperationists 
suspected  that  a  game  might  be  played  upon  them,  confusion 
thrown  into  their  ranks,  and  under  pressure  of  excitement  se- 
cession forced  upon  the  convention  at  the  last  moment.  Ham- 
mond's plan  met  with  little  favor.  On  the  question  of  calling 
the  state  convention,  a  decision  incumbent  upon  the  legislature, 
there  was  considerable  division  of  sentiment,  though  the  major- 
ity, influenced  chiefly  by  fear  of  what  the  secession  majority 
might  do  with  that  convention,  preferred  that  it  should  never 

M  Aldrieh  to  Hammond,  Nov.  10,  11,  1851,  ibid. 
"Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Nov.  11,  1851,  ibid. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  135 

meet. 20  Unable  or  unwilling  to  agree  upon  any  definite  policy 
the  caucus  adjourned  after  declaring  it  inexpedient  in  view  of 
the  existing  aspect  of  affairs  to  do  more  than  indicate  in  a  series 
of  resolutions  the  platform  on  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  cau- 
cus, the  people  of  South  Carolina  had  placed  themselves  by  the 
recent  election. 

These  resolutions  asserted  that  the  state  had  decided  that 
while  the  right  of  secession  was  fundamental  and  indispensable, 
its  exercise  'by  a  single  state  without  the  assurance  of  support 
and  the  concurrence  of  other  states  was  not  an  appropriate  rem- 
edy for  existing  grievances  nor  sufficient  safeguard  against  those 
which  menaced  in  the  future,  and  that  any  attempt  to  accom- 
plish this  would  be  in  contravention  of  the  clear  declaration  of 
public  will.  The  second  resolution  declared  that  the  people  of 
South  Carolina  had  decided  that  concert  of  action  among  the 
slaveholding  states  was  essential  as  a  remedy  for  existing  evils 
and  as  a  protection  against  impending  evils,  and  ' '  that  coopera- 
tion for  these  purposes  ought  to  be  earnestly  sought  after  and 
promoted."  The  third,  that  South  Carolina  maintained  a  deep 
sense  of  her  grievances  and  dangers  and  persevered  in  her  de- 
termination to  remove  and  avert  them  as  soon  as  the  cooperation 
of  other  states  should  give  her  action  efficiency  and  render  her 
security  permanent.  The  two  final  resolutions  recommended  the 
preservation  of  the  organization  of  those  who  desired  to  promote 
cooperation,  and  invited  all  parties  to  unite  in  pursuing  this 
policy  which  the  state  had  marked  out. " 

Perry,  of  course,  was  not  invited  to  attend  the  caucus  of  the 
cooperationists  with  whom  he  had  fought  shoulder  to  shoulder 
against  secession.  That  measure  defeated,  he  desired  no  further 
agitation  of  the  question  of  resistance.  He  was  in  Columbia  as  a 


"Aldrieh  to  Hammond,  Nov.  26,  28,  1851,  ibid. 
"  Mercury,  Dec.  2 ;  South  Carolinian,  Dec.  2,  1851. 


136         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

member  of  the  legislature  late  in  November  and  wrote  thus  re- 
garding some  of  his  former  allies :  "  I  am  afraid  there  is  a  dis- 
position on  the  part  of  the  co-operation  leaders  to  keep  up  a  fuss 
and  excitement.  If  so,  I  shall  turn  our  battery  against  them  and 
assist  any  forces  that  may  be  in  the  field,  whether  secessionists  or 
not,  in  demolishing  them,  and  giving  quiet  to  our  country.  The 
rank  and  file  of  the  co-operation  party  are  decidedly  for  repose, 
and  will  ultimately  become  good  union  men  once  more. ' '  " 

Such  was  the  fear  of  many  secession  and  some  co-operation 
leaders,  but  efforts  to  effect  a  union  of  their  forces  were  fruit- 
less. The  former  charged  that  the  majority  of  the  cooperation- 
ists  were  union  men  and  submissionists. 2a  Even  the  resistance 
men  among  the  cooperationists  were  suspicious  of  the  plans  of 
the  secessionists.  They  insisted  that  their  defeated  opponents 
not  only  acknowledge  for  the  time  that  secession  was  hopeless 
but  give  it  up  as  the  policy  of  the  state  for  existing  grievances. 
The  secessionists  refusing  to  give  up  their  cherished  principle 
and  accepting  Hammond's  plan  only  as  a  step  towards  ultimate 
secession  and  not,  as  Aldrich  explained  it  to  them,  as  a  means  to 
the  establishment  of  a  Southern  confederacy,  not  a  single  co- 
operation leader  was  willing  to  lift  a  finger  in  aid  of  the  forma- 
tion of  any  effective  resistance  organization. 24  Hammond  urged 
the  necessity  of  the  secessionists  abandoning  the  policy  of  se- 
cession forever  to  prevent  the  creation  of  a  union-submission 
party.  The  secessionists,  however,  were  in  no  temper  for  a  re- 
nunciation of  faith  and  did  not  think  that  they  should  be  re- 
quired to  give  up  more  than  the  idea  of  secession  under  existing 
circumstances.  For  the  time  .being  no  understanding  could  be 
reached.  Gregg  well  expressed  the  feeling  of  some  secessionists, 
at  least,  when  he  later  wrote :  ' '  But  if  I  consented  to  renounce 

M  Southern  Patriot,  Dec.  4,  1851. 

**  Lewis  M.  Ayer,  Jr.,  to  Hammond,  Dec.  1,  1851,  Hammond  MSS. 

"Aldrieh  to  Hammond,  Dec.  9,  1851,  ibid. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  137 

the  right  of  secession — or  what  comes  to  the  same  thing — to  de- 
clare that  it  must  never  be  exercised  separately,  I  should  feel 
that  I  was  abandoning  the  political  faith  of  my  whole  life  and 
turning  consolidationist.  A  consolidation  with  Georgia  and 
Tennessee  I  regard  only  not  quite  so  great  an  evil  as  a  consoli- 
dation with  New  York  and  Ohio. ' ' 25 

The  cooperationists  came  to  no  determination  as  to  what 
should  be  their  attitude  towards  the  calling  of  the  state  conven- 
tion. It  will  be  remembered  that  the  act  providing  for  the  elec- 
tion of  delegates  to  a  state  convention  had  not  set  a  date  for  its 
assembling.  It  now  devolved  upon  the  legislature  which  met  in 
November,  1851,  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  convention 
should  meet,  and  if  so,  on  what  date.  A  bill  calling  the  conven- 
tion to  meet  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  April,  1852, 26  was  intro- 
duced by  the  secessionists  and  adopted  by  the  legislature.  Party 
lines  were  split  on  the  question  but  the  bill  passed  without  ser- 
ious opposition.  " 

With  the  definite  calling  of  the  convention  nothing  remained 
to  be  done  by  the  politicians  and  editors  but  to  consider  what  the 
convention  should  do.  And  very  little  of  this  apparently  was 
done.  Perry  feared  that  the  convention  might  do  some  mischief 
and  regretted  that  it  had  been  called,  but  since  it  was  to  meet  he 
thought  that  it  should  lay  down  a  platform  broad  enough  for  the 
whole  South  and  show  that  the  state  was  ready  to  cooperate 
whenever  necessary  in  defending  her  institutions  and  maintain- 
ing equal  rights  in  the  Union. 28  The  Southern  Standard  was 
rather  fearful  that  the  convention  in  the  control  of  the  seces- 
sionists might  adopt  some  measures  which  would  hasten  or  in- 


25  Maxcy  Gregg  to  Hammond,  Mar.  29,  1852,  ibid. 
M  S.  C.  Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  100. 

"Mercury,   Dec.   9,    1851.     Debates  summarized    in   South   Carolinian, 
Dec.  6,  8,  1851. 

28  Southern  Patriot,  Jan.  8,  1852. 


138         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

duce  the  measures  of  that  party,  and  it  thought  that  the  conven- 
tion should  do  nothing,  not  even  make  pledges  as  to  what  the 
state  would  do  in  the  future. 29  The  secessionists  were  quiet,  but 
as  the  time  for  the  meeting  of  the  convention  drew  near  there 
was  some  discussion  as  to  what  it  might  accomplish.  Everyone 
accepted  the  question  of  secession  as  dead.  Both  Congressman 
J.  A.  Woodward  and  Congressman  Daniel  Wallace  urged  in  pub- 
lic letters  that  the  chief  duty  of  the  convention  was  to  restore 
harmony  to  the  state  and  place  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
where  the  legislature  of  1850  found  them,  united  on  the  State 
Rights  Republican  platform. 30 

The  idea  of  reconciliation  met  with  a  considerable  degree  of 
favor.  The  South  Carolinian  reported  that  the  idea  was  being 
preached,  and  declared  that  the  secessionists  were  willing  for 
harmony  on  an  honorable  basis — on  any  basis  of  union  which 
did  not  involve  "desertion  of  state  rights;  or  the  merging  of 
state  sovereignty  into  the  consolidation  of  section. ' ' 31  One  rea- 
son for  this  desire  for  a  reunion  of  parties  was  the  fear  of  the 
growing  power  of  the  Union  party  in  South  Carolina.  One 
journal  thought  that  the  convention  could  do  much  towards  put- 
ting down  this  party  and  keeping  up  the  spirit  of  opposition  to 
the  Union  so  that  when  the  time  should  come  for  the  South  to 
dissolve  the  Union,  South  Carolina  could  be  among  the  fore- 
most. 3a  There  were  some  among  the  secessionists,  however,  who 
still  thought  that  though  the  convention  should  not  secede,  it 
ought  to  take  some  definite  action  short  of  secession,  by  which 
State  Rights  and  Sovereignty  would  be  "practically  asserted." 


"Quoted  in  Southern  Patriot,  Feb.  12,  1852. 

"  J.  A.  Woodward  to  Samuel  G.  Barkley,  Mar.  16,  Black  Eiver  Watch- 
man, Apr.  3,  1852;  D.  Wallace  to  James  Farrow,  Apr.  12,  Mercury,  Apr. 
16,  1852. 

*  Apr.  24,  1852. 

*  Unionvitte  Journal  quoted  in  South  Carolinian,  Apr.  6,  1852. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  139 

Among  these  propositions  were  the  following:  withdraw  the 
state's  representation  in  Congress,  abstain  from  presidential 
elections,  and  ordain  prospective  secession. 33  Gregg  still  favored 
a  modification  of  Hammond's  plan,  but  even  Aldrich  among  the 
cooperationists  kad  given  it  up. 3* 

On  April  26,  1852,  the  convention,  elected  fourteen  months 
previously  and  controlled  by  the  secessionists,  met  in  Columbia. 
In  accordance  with  long  established  custom  Governor  John  H. 
Means  was  chosen  president  of  the  convention.  The  governor 
urged  that  the  first  duty  of  the  convention  was  to  heal  the  divis- 
ions in  the  state.  ' '  We  meet  together  as  members  of  one  common 
family,"  he  said,  "whose  interest,  honor,  and  destiny  are  the 
same.  A  deep  devotion  to  our  country  and  its  institutions  should 
be  the  polar  star  to  guide  us  in  our  course.  The  arm  of  our  state, 
which  was  recently  strong  and  ready  to  strike,  has  been  para- 
lized  alone  by  our  dissensions.  Let  us  heal  them  at  once,  that 
with  firm  and  united  strength  we  may  meet  the  enemies  of  our 
institutions.  Upon  the  union  of  our  state,  I  solemnly  believe,  de- 
pends our  destiny. ' ' 3S 

Most  of  the  work  was  done  outside  of  the  convention  proper, 
in  party  caucus,  or  in  the  committee  of  twenty-one  which 
was  appointed  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  act  which 
had  provided  for  the  convention.  This  committee,  with 
Langdon  Cheves,  the  most  influential  member  of  the  conven- 
tion, as  chairman,  was  composed  of  twelve  cooperationists, 
eight  secessionists  and  one  unionist.  Cheves  was  very  much 
afraid  of  the  convention,  which  he  called  ' '  an  infernal  machine, ' ' 
and  was  anxious  to  adjourn  as  quickly  as  possible.  Effectual 
measures  were  taken  to  prevent  discussion  on  the  floor  of  the 

"Correspondent  of  Mercury,  Columbia,  Apr.  26,  in  Mercury,  Apr.  28, 
1852. 

14  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Apr.  20,  1852,  Hammond  MSS. 
*  Journal  of  the  State  Convention  of  South  Carolina,  9-10. 


140         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

convention  by  adopting  a  rule  that  motions  to  adjourn,  to  lay 
on  the  table,  to  adjourn  a  debate,  etc.,  should  be  decided  without 
debate  after  such  short  conversations  as  the  president  might 
permit. 38 

Thought  possessed  of  a  majority  in  the  convention,  the  se- 
cessionists were  reported  to  be  in  a  snarl  and  to  have  no 
concert  or  policy.  They  requested  of  the  cooperationists  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  committee  of  conference  to  consult  with  them  and 
consider  what  measures  the  convention  could  harmoniously 
adopt.  The  cooperationists  accepted  and  proposed  at  the  first 
meeting  of  the  conference  that  the  convention  affirm  the  right  of 
secession,  and  state  that  thought  the  causes  were  sufficient  to  di- 
vide the  Union,  South  Carolina  withheld  her  hand  for  want  of 
aid  from  her  sister  states,  but  would  be  ready  to  leave  the  Union 
when  any  one  or  more  states  were  ready  to  take  the  lead.  The 
secessionists  rejected  this,  and  proposed,  though  not  unanimous- 
ly, that  the  convention  withdraw  the  delegaton  from  Congress, 
refuse  to  go  into  the  presidential  election,  and  ultimately  upon 
some  contingency,  no  matter  what,  secede.  No  compromise  could 
be  reached  and  the  conference  broke  up  in  confusion.  The  se- 
cessionists caucused  again  and  it  was  reported  that  they  had  de- 
cided to  support  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  giving  to  the 
legislature  the  right  to  withdraw  the  state  from  the  Union  by  a 
two-thirds'  vote.  Evidently  this  also  was  unacceptable  to  the 
cooperationists,  for  at  another  caucus  of  the  secessionists  those 
who  desired  conciliation  and  harmony  for  the  state  rejected  all 
violent  measures  that  had  been  proposed  and  decided  to  support 
the  position  of  the  cooperationists.  Rhett  was  present  at  this 
caucus  of  his  party,  though  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  conven- 
tion, but  a  motion  proposed  by  Gregg  requesting  him  to  address 


36  Ibid.,  13,  14;  editorial  correspondence  of  the  Southern  Patriot,  May 
6,  1852;  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  3,  1852,  Hammond  MSS. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  141 

the  meeting  was  not  accepted.  "    This  was  a  severe  rebuke  from 
his  party. 

On  the  floor  of  the  convention  a  proposition,  in  which  R,  B. 
Rhett  manifested  great  interest  and  which  was  made  by  his 
brother  Edmund  Rhett,  to  nullify  the  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  that  "the  citizens  of  each  State  shall 
be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
several  states,"  so  far  as  regards  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts 
and  Vermont,  and  making  it  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  pre- 
vent the  citizens  of  those  states  entering,  abiding,  or  holding  pro 
perty  within  South  Carolina,  was  decisively  rejected. 88  The 
proposal  to  give  the  legislature  the  right  to  withdraw  the  state 
from  the  Union  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  96  to  60. 39  From  the 
Committee  of  Twenty-one  Perry  submitted  a  minority  report, 
signed  only  by  himself,  which  was  in  effect  a  denial  of  the  right 
of  secession,  though  affirming  the  revolutionary  right  of  establish- 
ing a  new  government  when  the  old  one  should  have  become  de- 
structive of  the  ends  for  which  it  was  instituted,  and  which 
sought  to  place  South  Carolina  on  the  Georgia  platform,  pledged 
to  resist  future  aggressions  upon  slavery.  This  report  was  laid  on 
the  table. 40  The  majority  report  from  the  Committee  of  Twenty- 
one  was  accepted  by  the  Convention  by  a  vote  of  136  to  19,  and 
after  a  five  day  session  the  convention  adjourned  and  was  de- 
clared by  the  president  to  be  dissolved.  The  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Twenty-one,  representing  the  only  action  that  was  tak- 
en by  the  convention,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  and  ordinance, 
read  as  follows : 41 

"Resolved  by  the  people  of  South  Carolina  in  Convention 


"  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  Apr.  28,  May  3,  1852.  Hammond  MS8. 

M  Journal  of  the  Convention,  17. 

"Ibid.,  16-17. 

*>  Ibid.,  18,  23,  24. 

"Ibid.,  18,  19. 


142         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

assembled,  That  the  frequent  violations  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  its  encroach- 
ments upon  the  reserved  rights  of  the  sovereign  States  of  this 
Union,  especially  in  relation  to  slavery,  amply  justify  this  State, 
so  far  as  any  duty  or  obligation  to  her  confederates  is  involved, 
in  dissolving  at  once  all  political  connection  with  her  co-States; 
and  that  she  forbears  the  exercise  of  this  manifest  right  of  self- 
government  from  considerations  of  expediency  only. 
An  Ordinance  to  declare  the  right  of  this  State  to  secede  from 
the  Federal  Union. 

We,  the  People  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  in  Conven- 
tion assembled,  do  declare  and  ordain,  and  it  is  hereby  declared 
and  ordained,  That  South  Carolina,  in  the  exercise  of  her  sov- 
ereign will,  as  an  independent  State,  acceded  to  the  Federal 
Union,  known  as  the  United  States  of  America ;  and  that  in  the 
exercise  of  the  same  sovereign  will,  it  is  her  right,  without  let, 
hindrance,  or  molestation  from  any  power  whatsoever,  to  secede 
from  the  said  Federal  Union :  and  that  for  the  sufficiency  of  the 
causes  which  may  impel  her  to  such  separation,  she  is  responsible 
alone,  under  God,  to  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth. ' ' 

Rhett  considered  that  the  action  of  the  convention  had  de- 
termined that  the  position  of  South  Carolina  was  submission 
and  her  policy  cooperation,  and  deeming  himself  no  proper  rep 
resentative  of  such  a  position  and  policy  he  promptly  resigned 
his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate.  *2  Hammond  declared, 
' '  The  Report  and  Ordinance  are  too  pitiful  for  comment. ' ' 4S 
But  by  the  newspapers  of  the  state  the  work  of  the  convention 
was  very  well  received.  Some  declared  the  ordinance  a  forward 
step ;  others  rejoiced  that  it  dealt  a  blow  to  the  Union  party ;  all 


41  Rhett  to  Means,  Apr.  30,  May  5,  1852,  in  Mercury,  May  10,  1852. 
*  Hammond  to  Simms,  May  14,  1852,  Hammond  M8S. 


THE  STATE  CONVENTION  143 

expressed  great  gratification  that  it  had  effected  the  harmonious 
reunion  of  the  two  resistance  parties. 

Some  months  later  Governor  Means  reviewed  the  whole 
course  of  the  conflict  and  congratulated  the  state  on  the  wise  and 
patriotic  course  of  the  convention  in  healing  the  wounds  and  re- 
uniting the  state.  He  thus  interpreted  the  results  of  the  conven- 
tion and  explained  the  position  of  the  state :  ' '  Our  destiny,  for 
weal  or  for  woe,  is  connected  with  the  whole  South.  Further  ag- 
gressions (which  will  surely  come)  will  convince  our  sister 
^Southern  States  that  the  institution  upon  which  not  only  the 
prosperity  of  the  South,  but  Republicanism  itself  depends,  is  no 
longer  safe  in  the  Union.  Then  we  may  hope  that  they  will  rise 
in  the  majesty  of  their  strength  and  spirit,  and,  in  conjunction 
with  us,  either  force  our  rights  to  be  respected  in  the  Union,  or 
take  our  place  as  a  Southern  Confederacy  amongst  the  nations 
of  the  world."44 

"Message  to  the  Legislature.     8.  C.  Senate  Journal,  1852,  29-30. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

In  the  following  bibliography  no  attempt  is  made  to  list  all 
of  the  material  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  thesis.  It 
has  been  thought  sufficient  to  list  only  that  material  which  has 
been  of  direct  value,  to  most  of  which  reference  has  been  made  in 
the  footnotes. 


I.    UNPUBLISHED  SOURCES 

Claiborne  MSS.  This  collection,  in  the  possession  of  the  Missis- 
sippi Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Jackson,  Missis- 
sippi, contains  valuable  correspondence  between  John  A. 
Quitman  and  South  Carolina  secessionists. 

Hammond  MSS.  A  large  and  exceedingly  important  collection 
of  the  letters  and  papers  of  James  H.  Hammond,  for  many 
years  prominent  in  South  Carolina  politics.  Library  of 
Congress. 

Poinsett  MSS.  A  collection  of  the  correspondence  of  Joel  R. 
Poinsett,  a  prominent  and  life-long  leader  of  the  South  Car- 
olina Unionists.  In  the  Library  of  the  Pennsylvania  His- 
torical Society,  Philadelphia. 

Seabrook  MSS.  A  small,  but  very  valuable  collection  of  the  cor- 
respondence of  Whitemarsh  B.  Seabrook,  Governor  of  South 
Carolina,  1848-1850.  Library  of  Congress. 

Webster  MSS.  This  collection  of  the  papers  of  Daniel  Webster 
in  the  Library  of  Congress  contains  occasional  letters  from 
South  Carolina  Whigs. 


146         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

II.    PUBLISHED  CORRESPONDENCE,  DIARIES, 
SPEECHES  AND  MEMOIRS 

Allston,  Joseph  Blyth,  The  Life  and  Times  of  James  L.  Petigru, 
in  Charleston,  S.  C.,  Sunday  News,  Jan.  21-June  17,  1900. 
Very  largely  a  collection  of  Petigru 's  letters,  occasion- 
ally of  value  for  this  thesis. 

Benton,  Thomas  Hart,  Thirty  Years'  View,  2  vols.,  New  York, 
1854. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  edited 
by  J.  F.  Jameson,  in  American  Historical  Association,  An- 
nual Report,  1899,  vol.  II,  Washington,  1900. 

.  The  Works  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  edited  by  R.  K.  Cralle, 

6  vols.,  New  York,  1854-55. 

Claiborne,  J.  F.  H.,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  A.  Quit- 
man,  2  vols.,  New  York,  1860. 

Vol.    II   contains    important   correspondence   between 
Quitman  and  influential  South  Carolina  secessionists. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  ed.,  Correspondence  of  Robert  Toombs,  Alexander 
Stephens  and  Howell  Cobb,  in  American  Historical  Associa- 
tion, Annual  Report,  1911,  vol.  II. 

Polk,  James  K.,  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk,  edited  by  M.  M. 
Quaife,  4  vols.,  Chicago,  1910. 

III.     PUBLIC  DOCUMENTS 

Ames,  H.  V.,  ed.,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations:  the 
States  and  the  United  States,  Philadelphia,  1911. 

Congressional  Globe,  1846-1852. 

Congressional  Documents,  1846-1852. 

Acts  of  General  Assembly  of  Alabama,  1847-1852. 

Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Georgia,  1846-1852. 

Journal  of  the  State  Convention,  held  in  Milledgeville,  in  De- 
cember, 1850.  Milledgeville,  1850. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  147 

Journal  of  the  State  Convention  of  South  Carolina;  together 
with  the  Resolution  and  Ordinance,  Columbia,  S.  C.,  1852. 

Journal  of  the  South  Carolina  Senate,  1846-1852. 

Journal  of  the  South  Carolina  House  of  Representatives,  1846- 
1852. 

Reports  and  Resolutions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  South  Car- 
olina, 1846-1852. 

The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vols.  XI,  XII,  Colum- 
bia, 1873, 1874. 

Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  1846-1851. 

IV.    NEWSPAPERS  AND  MAGAZINES 

NUes'  Register,  1846-1849. 

Harper's  New  Monthly  Magazine,  vols.  I-IV. 

The  Charleston  Courier,  daily,  1846-1852.    Charleston  Library. 

The  Charleston  Mercury,  daily,  1846-1852.    Charleston  Library. 

The  Charleston  Evening  News,  daily,   1851-1852.     Charleston 

Library. 
The  South  Carolinian  (Columbia),  semi-weekly,  Jan.  14,  1848- 

Mar.  16,  1849 ;  daily,  1851-1852.    Library  of  Congress. 
The  Tri-Weekly  South  Carolinian    (Columbia),   Oct.  2,   1849- 

Mar.  28,  1851.    Library  of  Congress. 
The  Columbia  Daily  Telegraph,  Oct.  19,  1847-  Apr.  19,  1848. 

Library  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina. 
The  Winyah  Observer  (Georgetown),  weekly,  1846-1852.   Library 

of  the  Winyah  Indigo  Society,  Georgetown,  S.  C. 
The  Greenville  Mountaineer,  weekly,   Oct.   23,  1846-  Dec.   14, 

1849.    Charleston  Library. 
The  Southern  Patriot  (Greenville),  weekly,  Feb.  28,  1851-  May 

1,  1852.     Charleston  Library.    File  in  Library  of  Congress 

ending  with  issue  of  Dee.  25,  1851,  addressed  to  "Hon.  D. 

Webster,  Dept.  of  State." 


148         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

The  Pendleton  Messenger,  weekly,  August  7,  1846-  Apr.  7,  1848. 
Library  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina. 

The  Spartan  (Spartanburg),  weekly,  Feb.  13,  1849-  Dec.  25, 
1851.  Kennedy  Free  Library,  Spartanburg,  S.  C. 

The  Black  River  Watchman  (Sumterville),  weekly,  Apr.  27, 
1850-  May  1,  1852.  Library  of  the  University  of  South  Car- 
olina. 


V.    PAMPHLETS 

The  Position  and  Course  of  the  South,  by  Win.  H.  Trescot,  Esq., 
Charleston,  1850. 

The  Southern  States,  Their  Present  Peril,  and  Their  Certain 
Remedy,  Why  do  they  not  Right  Themselves?  and  so  fulfil 
their  Glorious  Destiny,  [by  John  Townsend].  Charleston, 
1850. 

The  Rightful  Remedy.  Addressed  to  the  Slaveholders  of  the 
South,  by  Edward  B.  Bryan,  Charleston,  1850. 

Letter  to  His  Excellency,  Whitemarsh  B.  Seabrook,  Governor 
of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  on  the  Dissolution  of  the 
Union,  [by  W.  J.  Grayson],  2d.  Edition,  Charleston,  1850. 

Speech  of  the  Hon.  Langdon  Cheves,  in  the  Nashville  Conven- 
tion, November  15,  1850,  Columbia,  S.  C.,  1850. 

God,  the  Refuge  of  His  People.  A  sermon  delivered  before  the 
General  Assembly  of  South  Carolina,  on  Friday,  December 
6,  1850,  being  a  day  of  Fasting,  Humiliation  and  Prayer, 
by  Whitefoord  Smith,  D.  D.,  Columbia,  S.  C.,  1850. 

Views  upon  the  Present  Crisis.  A  Discourse,  delivered  in  St. 
Peter's  Church,  Charleston,  on  the  6th  of  December,  1850, 
the  Day  of  Fasting,  Humiliation  and  Prayer,  appointed  by 
the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina.  By  Wm.  H.  Barnwell. 
rector  of  said  church.  Charleston,  1850. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  149 

An  oration  delivered  before  the  Fourth  of  July  Association,  at 
the  Hibernian  Hall,  July  Fourth,  1850.  By  W.  Alston 
Pringle.  Charleston,  1850. 

Our  Danger  and  Duty.  A  Discourse  delivered  in  the  Glebe- 
Street  Presbyterian  Church  on  Friday,  December  6,  1850, 
by  the  Rev.  A.  A.  Porter,  Pastor.  Charleston,  1850. 

Resolutions  and  Address  adopted  by  The  Southern  Convention 
held  at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  June  3d  to  12th,  inclusive, 
1850.  Together  with  a  preamble  and  resolutions,  adopted 
November  18th,  1850.  Published  by  Order  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  Columbia,  S.  C.,  1850. 

Speech  of  the  Hon.  "W.  F.  Colcock,  delivered  before  the  meeting 
of  Delegates  from  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  of 
South  Carolina  at  Charleston,  May,  1851.  Charleston,  1851. 

Substance  of  an  address  delivered  on  the  fourth  of  July,  1851, 
at  the  village  of  Beaufort,  by  Hon.  Richard  De  Treville, 
Columbia,  S.  C.,  1851. 

An  address  on  the  Question  of  Separate  State  Secession  to  the 
People  of  Barnwell  District,  by  Lewis  Malone  Ayer,  Jr., 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  1851. 

Circular  of  Messrs.  Perry,  Duncan  and  Brockman,  to  the  People 
of  Greenville  District,  Asheville,  1851. 

An  Address  of  the  Southern  Rights  Association  of  the  South 
Carolina  College,  to  the  students  in  the  colleges,  universi- 
ties, and  to  the  young  men,  throughout  the  southern  states. 
Columbia,  S.  C.,  1851. 

Speech  of  the  Hon.  B.  F.  Perry  of  Greenville  District,  delivered 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  South  Carolina,  on  the 
llth  of  December,  1850,  on  a  number  of  propositions  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  State  and  Fed- 
eral affairs.  Charleston,  1851. 

Our  Mission :  is  it  to  be  accomplished  by  the  perpetuation  of  our 
present  Union?  The  question  considered  by  the  Light  of 


150         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Revealed  Religion  in  a  Review  of  the  Political  opinions  of 
some  of  our  Clergy.  Charleston,  1851. 

Proceedings  of  the  meetings  of  Delegates  from  the  Southern 
Rights  Associations  of  South  Carolina.  Held  at  Charleston, 
May,  1851.  Columbia,  1851. 

Separate  State  Secession,  Practically  Discussed,  in  a  series  of 
articles  in  the  Edgefield  Advertiser,  by  Rutledge.  Edge- 
field,  C.  H.,  S.  C.,  1851. 

Southern  Rights  Documents.  Cooperation  meeting.  Held  in 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  July  29th,  1851. 

Southern  Rights  and  Cooperation  Documents.  No.  2. — Remarks 
of  the  Hon.  R.  W.  Barnwell,  before  the  convention  of  South- 
ern Rights  Associations  in  Charleston,  May,  1851. 

Southern  Rights  and  Cooperation  Documents  No.  6. — Proceed- 
ings of  the  great  Southern  Cooperation  and  Anti-Secession 
Meeting  held  in  Charleston,  September  23,  1851.  Charles- 
ton, 1851. 

Southern  Rights  and  Cooperation  Documents  No.  7. — Speech  of 
Mr.  Memminger  at  a  public  meeting  of  the  friends  of  co- 
operation in  the  Cause  of  Southern  Rights,  held  in  Charles- 
ton, Sept.  23,  1851,  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  delegates 
to  the  Southern  Congress.  Charleston,  1851. 

Facts  for  the  People,  No.  7.  Secession  First — Cooperation  Af- 
ter. Charleston,  1851. 

Southern  Rights  and  Cooperation  Document.  The  "Rutledge" 
Pamphlet  Reviewed,  in  a  series  of  editorials  which  origin- 
ally appeared  in  the  Charleston  Evening  News. 

Speech  delivered  by  Col.  C.  G.  Memminger,  made  at  the  Mass 
Meeting  in  Pendleton. 

Report  on  the  Subjects  of  Slavery,  presented  to  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina,  at  their  sessions  in  Winnsborough,  Novem- 
ber 6,  1851,  adopted  by  them,  and  published  by  their  order. 
By  Rev.  J.  H.  Thornwell,  D.  D.  Columbia,  S.  C.,  1852. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  151 

VI.     BIOGRAPHIES  AND  SPECIAL  WORKS 

Boucher,  Chauncey  Samuel,  The  Nullification  Controversy  in 
South  Carolina,  Chicago,  1916. 

Capers,  H.  D.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  C.  O.  Memminger,  Rich- 
mond, 1893. 

Cole,  Arthur  C.,  "The  South  and  the  Right  of  Secession  in  the 
Early  Fifties,"  in  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  I, 
376-399. 

.  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South.    Washington,  1913. 

DuBose,  J.  W.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  William  Lowndes  Tan- 
cey,  Birmingham,  1892. 

Garner,  J.  W.,  "The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Missis- 
sippi," in  Publications  of  the  Mississippi  Hitorical  Society, 
IV. 

Grayson,  William  J.,  James  Louis  Petigru,  a  Biographical 
Sketch,  New  York,  1866. 

Hearon,  Cleo,  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1850,  in  Publi- 
cations of  the  Mississippi  Historical  Society,  XIV,  1-229. 

Herndon,  Dallas  T.,  "The  Nashville  Convention  of  1850,"  in 
Alabama  Historical  Society,  Transactions,  V,  203-237. 

Houston,  D.  F.,  A  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in  South  Caro- 
lina (Harvard  Historical  Studies,  III),  New  York,  1896. 

Hunt,  Gaillard,  John  C.  Calhoun,  Philadelphia,  1908. 

Jenkins,  John  Stillwell,  The  Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  Buffalo, 
1857. 

Jervey,  Theodore  D.,  Robert  Y.  Hayne  and  His  Times,  New 
York,  1909. 

Meigs,  W.  M.,  The  Life  of  John  Caldwell  Calhoun,  2  vols.  New 
York,  1917. 

Newberry,  Farrar,  "The  Nashville  Convention  and  Southern 
Sentiment  of  1850,"  in  South  Atlantic  Quarterly,  XI,  259- 
273. 


152         THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

O'Neall,  J.  B.,  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of 
South  Carolina,  2  vols.,  Charleston,  1859. 

Perry,  B.  F.,  Reminiscences  of  Public  Men,  Philadelphia,  1883. 

Sioussat,  St.  George  L.,  "Tennessee,  The  Compromise  of  1850, 
and  the  Nashville  Convention,"  in  Mississippi  Valley  His- 
torical Review,  II,  311-347. 

Stille,  Charles  J.,  "The  Life  and  Services  of  Joel  R.  Poinsett," 
in  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  XII. 

Von  Hoist,  Hermann  Eduard,  John  C.  Calhoun,  Boston,  1892. 


115067 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000716917     o 


